Child Support

[Christina]

We’ve had a lot of discussions about what is fair about this and how it could be improved over the years and most of them went down in flames of hyperbole and anger so we never got anywhere other than to establish that we didn’t agree and had some major personal baggage and anecdotes that were getting in the way of discussing it rationally. I don’t think that there is going to be a one-size-fits-all solution because there are so many different kinds of relationships. Just for starters I can think of these and even then there are bound to be misunderstandings between people as to just what sort of relationship they’re in.

One night stands with near strangers
Friends with benefits
Dating with no commitment
Short term monogamous relationships
Long-term monogamous relationships
Married and divorced
Polyamory with more than 1 man involved
Intentionally lying about birth control/vasectomies
Others?


There can also be varying financial states of each parent ranging from dire poverty to one, the other or both parents being easily able to support the child. Should that matter in terms of what is fair?


Maybe we can avoid the “I know a wo/man that got screwed once so all wo/men are the evil” nonsense and remember that anecdotes are interesting but not necessarily representative of anything other than that one experience. I’ve thought about this a lot and I can’t think of a truly fair way to figure it out without the child potentially suffering that doesn’t include contracts similar to pre-nups and those would be completely impractical in casual situations. I know that I don’t like the idea of paying taxes to help anyone above the poverty line raise their children. In general my attitude is that if you can’t support them then use birth control and don’t have them (even if it fails) but I have no maternal instincts whatsoever or moral concerns about abortion. I’m fine with the idea that anyone that has been in a committed relationship or marriage has to share the burden but I’m not so comfortable with the idea of a woman getting pregnant from a casual encounter, choosing to keep the child and expecting the partner to share that commitment for 18 years. Then all of the exceptions about failed birth control, strong personal convictions about abortion, the age of the people involved and a host of other things complicate it more. Is there any fair way to work this out?

[Daynna]

Now that I'm a step-mom, Glenn Sacks blog (http://glennsacks.com/blog/index.php) has become more interesting. I don't agree with him all of the time, but he does address a lot of issues that aren't usually discussed.

I really don't know of a solution. Maybe there should be several solutions for applying to the relevant situation. For example, shared parenting can be a good alternative to one parent custody, but it's definitely not for everyone. Especially if the parents were never involved (one-night stand, etc).

[Christina]

The casual situation seems to be the most difficult to me. Both are adults that know what they're doing and what the potential consequences are and neither is under the impression that there is a commitment so that pushes me toward the side of sharing the consequences equally. What isn't equal though is that she has the choice of how to deal with the consequences and he doesn't. She can choose to commit him to financial support for 18 years and he has no control over the situation at all. The idea of anyone having any legal say over my reproductive rights is abhorrent to me so I don't think that the man should have the right to demand that she doesn't have it but I'm not comfortable with the idea of the woman having that much control over him either.

I've always been in such a liberal culture that I don't know what it's like in a religious environment where abortion isn't a realistic option. I might have a different opinion if the guy knows all along that abortion is absolutely out of the question.

[Octavia]

I don't know. It seems to me that this whole bunfight is about being responsible after the fact. Perhaps if more effort was put into emphasising responsibility before someone gets knocked up then there wouldn't be too many cases of "I'm being screwed out of money for a child I didn't ask for!"

Well boo-hoo. The child comes first, not the irresponsible adults. Fuck up, take the consequences, I say.

As far as I'm concerned, both men and women have the same rights here: the right to control over their own bodies. With that right comes responsibility. Yes, men have to exercise that responsibility earlier than women, but that doesn't abrogate the necessity for them to protect themselves. Everyone knows the biological score in advance.

[His Noodly Appendage]

I think liability ends where choice starts.

So in a case where pregnancy was explicitly unwanted and the father was not negligent or deceptive wrt contraception, the father is only obliged to pay for the cheapest available option, if he doesn't want to be involved.

If the condom breaks, you're up for half a morning-after pill, frankly. If she chooses to do nothing and keep any resulting pregnancy, that's fine - but it's up to her, and not your problem.

Similarly, if she falls out of bed during athletic sex and she cuts her arm on something, you're up for the cost of a bandaid. If she chooses to leave the wound open, unwashed and untreated until it gets hideously infected requiring major surgery and a lifetime of physical therapy... that's fine, but it's up to her, and not your problem.

It the failure wasn't obvious at the time, then you're up for half the cost of an abortion, or if that's not an option medically or legally, then you're up for half the cost of pregnancy and birth, and care up to the point that she can get the child adopted. Of course she can choose to keep it past that point - that's fine, but it's up to her, and not your problem.

Of course, if you want to assert any kind of rights or status as a parent, this goes out the window. If you choose to act as parent, that's up to you, but it becomes your problem.

Now, there's a bit of a can of worms wrt one-offs where you aren't in contact afterwards. Can she make a case for a reasonable expectation that you'd acknowledge any progeny? Did she make reasonable attempts to contact you? Did she deliberately avoid attempting to contact you until abortion (or even adoption) wasn't an option?

Throw these and half a dozen other factors together, and hand them to a judge.

[Octavia]

If the condom breaks, you're up for half a morning-after pill, frankly. If she chooses to do nothing and keep any resulting pregnancy, that's fine - but it's up to her, and not your problem.

The thing is, though, condoms aren't 100% effective. It would be great if they were, but they're not. Everybody knows this. Wear a condom; have him wear a condom - you're still voluntarily taking the risk of being saddled with a kid. It's a small risk, but it's there, and you know what you're doing. Any resulting kid can't make that claim - it bears no responsibility for its creation, and its needs should come first.

And this is why money should be poured into researching and providing 100% effective contraception. Preferably something that can be implanted at puberty and must be removed by a doctor before fertilisation can occur.

As for the small minority of freaks who impregnate themselves or another through dishonesty (stealing sperm, etc) - automatic loss of custodial rights, IMO. If the cheated party doesn't want the kid, put it up for adoption.

[His Noodly Appendage]

A child is not responsible for its creation, indeed.

However, the mother is responsible for keeping the pregnancy. It's her choice. But where it's your choice, it's your problem.

[Octavia]

And it's the man's choice - as it is the woman's - to engage in an activity that might lead to a kid.

If the man makes this choice, it's his problem too. Especially when he knows that his choice ends at ejaculation - as that is when his ability to control his own body ends. He, like the woman, has the right to decide what happens to their own body. If he chooses to exercise that right, he's got no grounds to complain when she does the same.

His choice, his problem. Exactly the same thing for her.

[His Noodly Appendage]

If I deliberately leave my baby on the freeway, does that oblige a bystander to charge in at risk of his own life and rescue it?

Certainly, rescuing it is the decent thing to do - but that doesn't mean you can charge people with negligence for refusing to do so.

Similarly, if you deliberately bear a child in a financially untenable situation, that doesn't oblige anyone to charge in and support it.

[Octavia]

It does if that "bystander" has an equal role in the conception of the child in the first place. A poor analogy, I think.

If a man deliberately chooses to risk conceiving a child with a) a woman in a poor financial situation, and/or b) a woman he can't trust to have the same views on unwanted pregnancy as he does, well - it's no-one's damn fault but his own if he finds himself paying child support for the child that he created. Maybe he'll grow a brain and make better choices next time. Maybe the mother will do the same.

The child shouldn't have to suffer because its parent made poor choices and did a runner instead of facing up to the (risk of) responsibility that parent knowingly entered into.

[dancer_rnb]

Men need to make damn sure it is their kid first.
Make no assumptions.

[Christina]

And this is why money should be poured into researching and providing 100% effective contraception.

I wander back and forth about the ethical issues as I hear people's opinions but on a practical level I agree with this completely. I entered college when the pill was becoming easily available and although it could fail it almost never did and it was far better than any barrier method. (This was before AIDS and when no one you ever knew had any kind of venereal disease or crabs and condoms were uncommon for a while.) If we can get to 99.9% effective and easily available for everyone it would solve a lot of the problem.

On a personal level I always saw birth control as my responsibility because I was determined not to get pregnant and I wasn't going to risk depending on someone else to make sure that didn't happen. It failed once when I had to go off the pill but I didn't even tell the guy because I was afraid he would want me to keep it. I can't put myself in the position of someone who doesn't want a kid, gets pregnant and then decides that she does want one after all because I don't get it. What is going on there and why do they change their mind? It's a good thing that not everyone is like me or the species would die out.

[His Noodly Appendage]

So basically "ha ha, should have kept it in your pants". It's good to see you side with the pro-life movement.

No, Octavia. Sex might lead to pregnancy. And I agree that the father takes the risk of paying for costs related to pregnancy.

Pregnancy can, if the mother so chooses, lead to a kid.

And a kid can, if the mother so chooses, lead to raising it.

But those are the mother's choices. And you can't force someone to pay for your choices.

[dancer_rnb]

If a man deliberately chooses to risk conceiving a child with a) a woman in a poor financial situation, and/or b) a woman he can't trust to have the same views on unwanted pregnancy as he does, well - it's no-one's damn fault but his own if he finds himself paying child support for the child that he created. Maybe he'll grow a brain and make better choices next time. Maybe the mother will do the same.


Men need to lose all illusions that they can rely on women on these matters.
They need to protect themselves and not rely on a woman to do so at all.

[Christina]

Men People need to lose all illusions that they can rely on women other people on these matters.
They need to protect themselves and not rely on a woman someone else to do so at all.

FIFY ;)

[Preno]

nm, missed the context

[Octavia]

So basically "ha ha, should have kept it in your pants". It's good to see you side with the pro-life movement.

No, Octavia. Sex might lead to pregnancy. And I agree that the father takes the risk of paying for costs related to pregnancy.

Pregnancy can, if the mother so chooses, lead to a kid.

And a kid can, if the mother so chooses, lead to raising it.

But those are the mother's choices. And you can't force someone to pay for your choices.

You can, apparently, if you're a bloke in your world, Noodly. Choose to risk contributing to conception, and then force others (mostly the baby) to pay for your choice when you run off and leave your partner holding the kid.

A baby's born because two people made choices. Not one, two.

Men have the ability to protect themselves if they don't want a kid, same as women. If they choose not to do this, they're going to learn PDQ that actions have consequences.

As it is, running off is no more than hoping that Mummy Will Take Care Of It. It's childish and irresponsible, and almost entirely avoidable.

[Octavia]

Men need to lose all illusions that they can rely on women on these matters. They need to protect themselves and not rely on a woman to do so at all.

Ding ding ding! WINNER! :notworthy:

And the same goes for women.

[dancer_rnb]

Men People need to lose all illusions that they can rely on women other people on these matters.
They need to protect themselves and not rely on a woman someone else to do so at all.

FIFY ;)

I was responding to Octavia's comments about men. Why not fix her post while you were at it?

Also, since men can't abort, you change is not equivalent.

[Christina]

She said that both genders needed to get a brain so I didn't have the urge to change it. I have no disagreement with men getting paternity tests. I sure as hell wouldn't accept responsibility without one unless I trusted the person very much.

[dancer_rnb]

She said that both genders needed to get a brain so I didn't have the urge to change it. I have no disagreement with men getting paternity tests. I sure as hell wouldn't accept responsibility without one unless I trusted the person very much.

The "both genders" part looked like a last minute throw in for "balance" in what I quoted.

"unless I trusted the other person very much"

I'd argue this is unwise romanticism.:evil:

[Christina]

If Joe said that I got him pregnant, I'd believe him. He would never lie about something like that. He's the only person that I trust that much.

Besides, we could start a new religion and get rich,

[Christina]

I can't put myself in the position of someone who doesn't want a kid, gets pregnant and then decides that she does want one after all because I don't get it. What is going on there and why do they change their mind?

I want to ask this again in the hopes that some of the moms here can answer it because it's important to how I think about this. It might have come across as a belittling question but I really want to know because I don't understand it because I never wanted to be a mother. It isn't just religious beliefs because I know plenty of secular women who have changed their minds even though the timing was very inconvenient. Is it some sort of hormonal urge to reproduce or is it an emotional desire?

[His Noodly Appendage]

Well, hormones aside, I daresay there are plenty of people who never wanted a pet, but after taking in a stray have been seduced over to the dark side...

There's a shift in perspective. It changes things. A bit like, I suspect, the difference between knowing you're mortal and getting diagnosed with something fatal. Wait, hold up just one fucking second. You mean that I personally, myself, this person saying these words to you am going to... oh...

However much you accept it intellectually, it's not something that you actually come to terms with until it happens.

[Christina]

I was young and still in school and my first reaction was "Oh no I need to get this thing the fuck out of me NOW". It was like watching my entire future flushing down the drain. Then my catholic guilt reared up and I decided that I probably should give more than 2 seconds thought to the matter since it could potentially be a child. I forced myself to dig around and poke in every corner and try to find some maternal part of me that even acknowledged that it was anything more than some very unwanted cell growth but I couldn't even work up a tear of regret. I even ate acid to see if I would have a bad trip over the whole thing. (I know, but I was 18 and those things made sense at the time.) Not only did I not get upset, something else caught my attention and I forgot all about it for at least 8 hours. I believe you all but I don't have that.

Why it matters to me is that I'm thinking about the difference between a "tough luck, I changed my mind" and some feeling so intense that it can't be dismissed without devastating emotional damage.

[Octavia]

So basically "ha ha, should have kept it in your pants". It's good to see you side with the pro-life movement.


Not pro-life, no. Ha. But very pro-family planning.

In the ideal world, of course, all children would be planned and wanted. Needless to say, that doesn't happen now, and won't until that 100% effective contraception is taken up by 100% of the people. That doesn't mean that the individual is let off the hook for planning/taking responsibility for their own family.

Like Christina, I simply can't understand those people that aren't firmly in control of their own contraception. I try to imagine finding myself knocked up with an unwanted baby... like a horror story, it would be. World's worst parent - kid would probably starve if it couldn't open the fridge and fix itself leftovers by six months.

[TySixtus]

I'm one of those people who usually sends a thread like this down in flames. Haha.

HNA is absolutely right. We usually don't agree on much, but we agree on this. The choice to take a fetus to term and have the baby is completely, 100% the mother's choice. She deals with the consequences of that action, and that should be that.

Now some people say "Well the man consents to the risk of having that child when he has sex, so he's made his choice too!" The problem with this argument is that it applies to the woman as well. So we're back to null, if you will excuse the phrase. That doesn't get us anywhere. Both adults, when having sex, consent to the risk of fertilizing an egg with sperm. That does not put you on the hook for raising a kid for 18 years. The woman is the only person in the situation who can make that decision. The consequences, then, must be for her to deal with.

Ideally none of this shit would happen. Perhaps with the advent of a male birth control pill (or something similar) would help in situations like these. But even then, the philosophical problem still remains. Conception doesn't put you on the hook for parenthood. At least, it shouldn't. I'm surprised so many people are on board with such a harsh, black and white dichotomy. It is very . . . Christian.

[TySixtus]

To put it another way, the "Tough shit you shoulda kept it in your pants!" argument works both ways. A man could say "Oh you want child support from me? Tough shit, you shoulda thought about that before you had sex! Deal with it!"

The only reason that doesn't work is because of the legal framework. Morally and philosophically, it is a perfectly sound -- though equally distasteful -- rejoinder.

[Sidhe747]

Always carry a condom. Ladies always carry protection and a condom or take it in pill form.

Job done.

If you don't want kids don't feel you have to have them just because your neighbours do.

[Sidhe747]

To put it another way, the "Tough shit you shoulda kept it in your pants!" argument works both ways. A man could say "Oh you want child support from me? Tough shit, you shoulda thought about that before you had sex! Deal with it!"

The only reason that doesn't work is because of the legal framework. Morally and philosophically, it is a perfectly sound -- though equally distasteful -- rejoinder.

If your going to play with loaded weapons you should prepare to kill or birth a few. Put a silencer on it at least or better still load your gun with blanks even.

[TySixtus]

I don't think I get your point.

[darjeeling]

Always carry a condom. Ladies always carry protection and a condom or take it in pill form.

Job done.

Not exactly. Contraception can fail.

[Sidhe747]

Always carry a condom. Ladies always carry protection and a condom or take it in pill form.

Job done.

Not exactly. Contraception can fail.

Not as often as not wearing contraception that's the point.

[Sidhe747]

I don't think I get your point.

Child support is only payable if you have children no?

[TySixtus]

If your next response is going to be "Well don't have children!" I'll thank you for playing.

[Octavia]

She deals with the consequences of that action, and that should be that.


But she doesn't deal with it alone, does she? The consequences aren't hers alone, are they? (Or his, if it's the dad left holding the baby.)

Let's face it: there's a party more important than either parent here, one who is forced to bear the repercussions of their choices, one who can't choose for itself. That's the kid. If either parent chooses to bugger off, it's the kid (not the remaining parent) who bears the brunt of that disappearance. Noodly can talk as much as he likes about it being wrong to force a man to support a child he doesn't want, but it seems to me to be even more wrong to foist the bulk of the consequences onto the one party of the three who bears absolutely no responsibility for the situation. That is also forcing someone to live with the consequences of another's choice.

IMO, the child's right to support from both legal parents outweighs the right of the parents to an unencumbered life - especially when those parents willingly and knowingly took on the risk of bringing that child into existence. The kid comes first.

[Sidhe747]

If your next response is going to be "Well don't have children!" I'll thank you for playing.

well don't?!

Problem solved. :p

[darjeeling]

Always carry a condom. Ladies always carry protection and a condom or take it in pill form.

Job done.

Not exactly. Contraception can fail.

Not as often as not wearing contraception that's the point.

Huh?

The point is that even if you use contraception, it's not "job done." There's a failure rate for contraception, even for tubal ligations. If you have sex, it's never "job done" unless you've had your bits/pieces of your organs removed or don't have any eggs to fertilize.

[Cath B]

Don't men who are unwilling to face the consequences of the mother / society / the law putting pressure for financial support for a baby have the option of sterilisation in a society which permits abortion?

If they fail to exercise that option do they not retain some degree of responsibility?

Giving birth is after all the default result of a healthy pregnancy, planned or otherwise.

[Sidhe747]

Always carry a condom. Ladies always carry protection and a condom or take it in pill form.

Job done.

Not exactly. Contraception can fail.

Not as often as not wearing contraception that's the point.

Huh?

The point is that even if you use contraception, it's not "job done." There's a failure rate for contraception, even for tubal ligations. If you have sex, it's never "job done" unless you've had your bits/pieces of your organs removed or don't have any eggs to fertilize.

:rolleyes:

[TySixtus]

She deals with the consequences of that action, and that should be that.


But she doesn't deal with it alone, does she? The consequences aren't hers alone, are they? (Or his, if it's the dad left holding the baby.)

What does this have to do with the other party? The consequence to have that child are hers. Can't afford it? Don't have it. You can't have the baby and then present it as a hostage to the other parent, demanding money for the upkeep. Yes, a child should be supported by both parents, but whose decision is it to take it that far? It is the woman's. Explain to me how her fiat should financially encumber the man? You can appeal to the baby all you want, but the fact remains: the mother chose to carry the fetus to term. Any consequences extending from that decision rest squarely upon her.

I will readily admit that if you're talking about the kids from a marriage or another recognized union -- a situation whereby both parents agreed to have kids and bring them into the world -- then they are obviously on the hook for taking care of them. But that is because they both made the decision.

[darjeeling]

Always carry a condom. Ladies always carry protection and a condom or take it in pill form.

Job done.

Not exactly. Contraception can fail.

Not as often as not wearing contraception that's the point.

Huh?

The point is that even if you use contraception, it's not "job done." There's a failure rate for contraception, even for tubal ligations. If you have sex, it's never "job done" unless you've had your bits/pieces of your organs removed or don't have any eggs to fertilize.

:rolleyes:

What was that for? Do you disagree with me that using a condom doesn't mean "problem solved" for a small percentage of cases where contraception fails?

[TySixtus]

Don't men who are unwilling to face the consequences of the mother / society / the law putting pressure for financial support for a baby have the option of sterilisation in a society which permits abortion?


This is just the same argument, reposted. In reverse, a woman can choose sterilization and, since she doesn't, she is agreeing to having to raise the child by herself with no financial support from anyone else.

[darjeeling]

IMO, the child's right to support from both legal parents outweighs the right of the parents to an unencumbered life - especially when those parents willingly and knowingly took on the risk of bringing that child into existence. The kid comes first.

You can make almost the same argument for banning abortion. The fetus doesn't have a choice in the matter, so why should the parents' desire for an unencumbered life outweigh the potential child's right to have the chance to be born? The legal parents willingly and knowingly took on the risk of bringing that fetus into existence. The fetus comes first. After all, the fetus has no choice in the matter.

Don't men who are unwilling to face the consequences of the mother / society / the law putting pressure for financial support for a baby have the option of sterilisation in a society which permits abortion?

If they fail to exercise that option do they not retain some degree of responsibility?

Having an abortion generally doesn't permanently remove your ability to have children.

[Sidhe747]

Always carry a condom. Ladies always carry protection and a condom or take it in pill form.

Job done.

Not exactly. Contraception can fail.

Not as often as not wearing contraception that's the point.

Huh?

The point is that even if you use contraception, it's not "job done." There's a failure rate for contraception, even for tubal ligations. If you have sex, it's never "job done" unless you've had your bits/pieces of your organs removed or don't have any eggs to fertilize.

:rolleyes:

What was that for? Do you disagree with me that using a condom doesn't mean "problem solved" for a small percentage of cases where contraception fails?

If you read my first post why are you talking to me?

That's what: :rolleyes: means.

Do you still beat your wife?

Always carry a condom. Ladies always carry protection and a condom or take it in pill form.

Job done.

If you don't want kids don't feel you have to have them just because your neighbours do.

Job done?

[TySixtus]

Ultimately I get so pissed off in these discussions because idiot teenage girls -- from prodding by idiot parents or otherwise idiot adults -- have kids by their idiot teenage boyfriends and think that the government is going to force the idiot teenage boyfriend to pay up, and she'll be happy and get to keep her baby and all that nonsense.

The reality is, a lot these situations involve teenage pregnancy. The girl isn't going to get shit from the boy because the boy is a fucking moron with no meaningful job. The government is picking up the tab here anyways. So it's not really about the money, it's about the sense of responsibility.

The sooner a teenage girl learns that she's not going to get any help from scumbag dad, the better. Maybe she'll visit Planned Parenthood, finish high school, go to college and then have kids when she's in a loving relationship and can actually fucking raise them.

[Sidhe747]

Ultimately I get so pissed off in these discussions because idiot teenage girls -- from prodding by idiot parents or otherwise idiot adults -- have kids by their idiot teenage boyfriends and think that the government is going to force the idiot teenage boyfriend to pay up, and she'll be happy and get to keep her baby and all that nonsense.

The reality is, a lot these situations involve teenage pregnancy. The girl isn't going to get shit from the boy because the boy is a fucking moron with no meaningful job. The government is picking up the tab here anyways. So it's not really about the money, it's about the sense of responsibility.

The sooner a teenage girl learns that she's not going to get any help from scumbag dad, the better. Maybe she'll take the pill, finish high school, go to college and then have kids when she's in a loving relationship and can actually fucking raise them.

Raise the age of consent to 21 then. :D

Kids don't try sex at home!

[darjeeling]

Always carry a condom. Ladies always carry protection and a condom or take it in pill form.

Job done.

Not exactly. Contraception can fail.

Not as often as not wearing contraception that's the point.

Huh?

The point is that even if you use contraception, it's not "job done." There's a failure rate for contraception, even for tubal ligations. If you have sex, it's never "job done" unless you've had your bits/pieces of your organs removed or don't have any eggs to fertilize.

:rolleyes:

What was that for? Do you disagree with me that using a condom doesn't mean "problem solved" for a small percentage of cases where contraception fails?

If you read my first post why are you talking to me?

That's what: :rolleyes: means.

Do you still beat your wife?

Yes, every night.

Always carry a condom. Ladies always carry protection and a condom or take it in pill form.

Job done.

If you don't want kids don't feel you have to have them just because your neighbours do.

Job done?

Right. That's what you said. "Job done." It's not "job done". That's my point. Unless by "job done" you meant, "You'll be okay most of the time but there's a small chance you'll still get pregnant," in which case you probably should've clarified.

[Sidhe747]

Always carry a condom. Ladies always carry protection and a condom or take it in pill form.

Job done.

Not exactly. Contraception can fail.

Not as often as not wearing contraception that's the point.

Huh?

The point is that even if you use contraception, it's not "job done." There's a failure rate for contraception, even for tubal ligations. If you have sex, it's never "job done" unless you've had your bits/pieces of your organs removed or don't have any eggs to fertilize.

:rolleyes:

What was that for? Do you disagree with me that using a condom doesn't mean "problem solved" for a small percentage of cases where contraception fails?

If you read my first post why are you talking to me?

That's what: :rolleyes: means.

Do you still beat your wife?

Yes, every night.

Always carry a condom. Ladies always carry protection and a condom or take it in pill form.

Job done.

If you don't want kids don't feel you have to have them just because your neighbours do.

Job done?

Right. That's what you said. "Job done." It's not "job done". That's my point. Unless by "job done" you meant, "You'll be okay most of the time but there's a small chance you'll still get pregnant," in which case you probably should've clarified.

:bang:

[Octavia]

The point is that even if you use contraception, it's not "job done." There's a failure rate for contraception, even for tubal ligations. If you have sex, it's never "job done" unless you've had your bits/pieces of your organs removed or don't have any eggs to fertilize.

True. Which is why being responsible about sex includes making sure you're on the same wavelength as the person you're having sex with when it comes to accidents.

From my point of view, for instance: I'm pro-choice, but I don't know if I would have an abortion if the issue came up. There's no way I'd have sex with anyone without that discussion taking place. If the bloke says straight-out that he doesn't want kids, I'm not going to bed with him; the risk is too great - both for me and the potential child. Simple as. If he's willing to take the risk and we go ahead and I end up very unfortunately up the duff, well, we both went into it eyes open knowing that a baby could result and we'd both be responsible for any abortion or child-rearing.

This isn't rocket science. People need to be responsible for their own fertility.

[TySixtus]

I gotta go with darjeeling on this one. Your post wasn't very clear, sidhe.

[Sidhe747]

I gotta go with darjeeling on this one. Your post wasn't very clear, sidhe.

:bang:

Look I said about contraception and then I said don't have kids because your neighbours do.

It's got to be clear enough surely?!

Contraception and abstinence are not contraception now?

How very Catholic! :evil:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk&feature=fvst

[Octavia]

The consequence to have that child are hers. Can't afford it? Don't have it. You can't have the baby and then present it as a hostage to the other parent, demanding money for the upkeep.

It's not okay to use a child as hostage, but it is okay to blackmail for abortion? "If you don't have an abortion, I won't support you. You can't afford to have it on your own, you know that you can't..."

Yes, a child should be supported by both parents, but whose decision is it to take it that far? It is the woman's. Explain to me how her fiat should financially encumber the man? You can appeal to the baby all you want, but the fact remains: the mother chose to carry the fetus to term. Any consequences extending from that decision rest squarely upon her.

But the father has equal responsibility for the conception of the child. Except, of course, if the entire situation is conveniently the choice of the woman, in which case the man need bear no responsibility for his actions at all. Hell, why should he even help pay for an abortion? It's the woman's choice to undergo that procedure - all expenses and repercussions should be hers, right?

I disagree. The father is equally responsible for the existence of the child. He could have refused to help create it - so could the mother. That her choice is made later than his doesn't abrogate the fact that the man also made a choice, and he has responsibilities that go along with it. Pretending that the man has no choice in the matter is a straw man. He does have a choice.

But that is because they both made the decision.

You see, this is, I think, the crux of our disagreement. I think that in all cases of unterminated pregnancy (well, not including the strange and very unusual exceptions) both parties have both made the decision. That one party didn't think matters through before making their choice, and then later regrets it and wants to pull out, is just too bad, IMO.

[darjeeling]

The point is that even if you use contraception, it's not "job done." There's a failure rate for contraception, even for tubal ligations. If you have sex, it's never "job done" unless you've had your bits/pieces of your organs removed or don't have any eggs to fertilize.

True. Which is why being responsible about sex includes making sure you're on the same wavelength as the person you're having sex with when it comes to accidents.

From my point of view, for instance: I'm pro-choice, but I don't know if I would have an abortion if the issue came up. There's no way I'd have sex with anyone without that discussion taking place. If the bloke says straight-out that he doesn't want kids, I'm not going to bed with him; the risk is too great - both for me and the potential child. Simple as. If he's willing to take the risk and we go ahead and I end up very unfortunately up the duff, well, we both went into it eyes open knowing that a baby could result and we'd both be responsible for any abortion or child-rearing.

This isn't rocket science. People need to be responsible for their own fertility.

I agree with all that. The problem is that not everyone is going to be responsible and people are going to have different ideas about where that responsibility ends. Not to mention, some people (I'm thinking teenagers, mostly) don't have the knowledge, maturity, or maybe even resources to deal with it responsibly.

When you described your point of view, you created a specific scenario. The thing is that we could sit here and come up with a hundred different situations, some in which we'll mostly agree that the parent absolutely must take responsibility and some in which we'll mostly agree that it'd be unfair for the parent to be forced to shoulder responsibility. It's confusing to talk about it in an abstract general sense. We could be talking about a situation like the one you described, with two responsible adults who know what they're doing. Or we could be talking about a situation where one partner lies about contraception. Or we could be talking about a situation where one partner agrees to be an involved parent and ducks out at the last minute, leaving the other hanging when it's too late to make any other choice. Or we could be talking about two kids who don't know what they're doing. And so on.

From a philosophical standpoint, I agree with HNA. There are a handful of choices in between pregnancy and raising a child, and it's up to the woman to decide. As it should be. But if the man has no say in the matter, it is pretty unjust to force him to be involved.

From a practical standpoint, she needs to understand that in taking the risk she may get pregnant, she'll be in a position where she has to make that kind of decision and that if she continues with the pregnancy, there's a chance she'll have to do it on her own. He needs to understand that if she gets pregnant, he'll have no say in the matter and no control over what happens next. In the real world, I don't really have a problem with requiring child support. Once the baby is born, there is another person involved. At the same time, there are serious problems with the way the system is run in a lot of places in the US.

[Octavia]

I agree with all that. The problem is that not everyone is going to be responsible and people are going to have different ideas about where that responsibility ends. Not to mention, some people (I'm thinking teenagers, mostly) don't have the knowledge, maturity, or maybe even resources to deal with it responsibly.

Sure. Which is why there needs to be emphasis on teaching responsibility and sex from a very young age. Learning how to roll a condom onto a banana just doesn't cut it. Emotional, economic, and practical consequences of parenthood and how to avoid it need to be hammered into every child until none of them, boys and girls both, have the excuse of "I didn't know..." Of course, with all the information out there, and with two working brain cells to rub together, no-one should really have that excuse now, but I'm willing to cater for the greater good.

This will take time, of course. But complete responsibility is something that we should be aiming for. And while I can see that Ty and Noodly are also aiming for that complete responsibility in their own way, I think mine is the better option. While I have a lot of sympathy for Ty's scenario, where silly little girls have babies and expect the state to pay for them, cutting off state support punishes the child instead of the irresponsible parties. I can't quite bring myself to go with that.


When you described your point of view, you created a specific scenario. The thing is that we could sit here and come up with a hundred different situations, some in which we'll mostly agree that the parent absolutely must take responsibility and some in which we'll mostly agree that it'd be unfair for the parent to be forced to shoulder responsibility. It's confusing to talk about it in an abstract general sense. We could be talking about a situation like the one you described, with two responsible adults who know what they're doing.

Or we could be talking about a situation where one partner lies about contraception. Or we could be talking about a situation where one partner agrees to be an involved parent and ducks out at the last minute, leaving the other hanging when it's too late to make any other choice. Or we could be talking about two kids who don't know what they're doing. And so on.

Anyone other than two responsible persons who know what they're doing should not be having sex. I know, I know - they are. Sarah Palin's daughter comes to mind. This is where educating from childhood to be responsible comes in. Everyone has a choice. They may not like the choice, but they have it.

But ideally, sex should be between those two responsible adults, who know and trust each other sufficiently well that they have a well-founded belief that what the other says is true. If you're choosing to have sex outside those parameters, you're choosing to engage in risk(ier) behaviour that could fuck up your life. That's voluntary, same as jumping out of a plane after reading the "there's a tiny chance your chute may fail" clause.

I wouldn't undergo that level of risk because the thought of being lumbered with an unwanted pregnancy leaves me in a cold sweat. But I have difficulty in understanding why, if I can manage myself sufficiently to not get knocked up by an irresponsible jerk, others can't do the same. (Substitute "knock up an irresponsible jerk" if you're a bloke.) And really the biggest answer I have is "choice". I'm sufficiently motivated to choose well. If others don't, I have little sympathy when they come looking to weasel out of their bad choices. I mean, I'm no genius. If I can do it, believe me, so can anyone else.

And that 100% effective, compulsory, opt-out-to-have-children contraception would really be a help.

...At the same time, there are serious problems with the way the system is run in a lot of places in the US.

Oh, I've no doubt. It's the same here I'm sure. I'm all for changing the system to work better. I just don't think that throwing it out altogether is the best alternative.

[darjeeling]

Sure. Which is why there needs to be emphasis on teaching responsibility and sex from a very young age. Learning how to roll a condom onto a banana just doesn't cut it. Emotional, economic, and practical consequences of parenthood and how to avoid it need to be hammered into every child until none of them, boys and girls both, have the excuse of "I didn't know..." Of course, with all the information out there, and with two working brain cells to rub together, no-one should really have that excuse now, but I'm willing to cater for the greater good.

Right. But even then, people are still going to fuck up and make mistakes, and even responsible people can get into complicated situations. And of course, there's the problem of where you get the resources to provide that thorough an education, and I'm ignoring how you'd go about getting initiatives like that through in conservative areas.

While I have a lot of sympathy for Ty's scenario, where silly little girls have babies and expect the state to pay for them, cutting off state support punishes the child instead of the irresponsible parties. I can't quite bring myself to go with that.

I don't think he's arguing for the state cutting off support. I think it was just a comment about kids not realizing the full consequences of having a baby.

In fact, I think the way it works in most places in the US is that the state pays the custodial parent regardless of whether the non-custodial parent makes their payment.

Anyone other than two responsible persons who know what they're doing should not be having sex. I know, I know - they are. Sarah Palin's daughter comes to mind. This is where educating from childhood to be responsible comes in. Everyone has a choice. They may not like the choice, but they have it.

Even with education, you still get a lot of problems, like the one I mentioned. Education won't prevent someone from promising to be involved and then dumping the responsibility on the other person. It won't prevent someone from lying about contraception or about what they'd do if they got pregnant/if their partner got pregnant. It will prevent a lot of stupid accidents, but it's obviously not going to be perfect. Better than nothing, but it won't fix everything.

But ideally, sex should be between those two responsible adults, who know and trust each other sufficiently well that they have a well-founded belief that what the other says is true. If you're choosing to have sex outside those parameters, you're choosing to engage in risk(ier) behaviour that could fuck up your life. That's voluntary, same as jumping out of a plane after reading the "there's a tiny chance your chute may fail" clause.

The difference is that when your chute fails, you don't then have a handful of choices left that will prevent you from going splat when you hit the ground. When you get pregnant, you do have choices that don't involve raising a child until they're 18.

But I have difficulty in understanding why, if I can manage myself sufficiently to not get knocked up by an irresponsible jerk, others can't do the same. (Substitute "knock up an irresponsible jerk" if you're a bloke.)

There are people who manage to be responsible and still get pregnant. It's not just a matter of being smart enough to not get knocked up by an irresponsible jerk.

This is what I mean by it being confusing to talk about this topic in a general sense.

And really the biggest answer I have is "choice". I'm sufficiently motivated to choose well.

Even if you choose well, you could still stumble into a complicated situation. Say you and he are on the same page at first, but then you get pregnant and one of you changes his/her mind.

And that 100% effective, compulsory, opt-out-to-have-children contraception would really be a help.

Of course.

...At the same time, there are serious problems with the way the system is run in a lot of places in the US.

Oh, I've no doubt. It's the same here I'm sure. I'm all for changing the system to work better. I just don't think that throwing it out altogether is the best alternative.

I don't think it should be thrown out (it's a net benefit to society, probably), but I still agree with HNA.

[Octavia]

The "changing one's mind" scenario doesn't really wash with me, though. It's too late to change your mind once the kid is in existence (at least it is if you're a bloke, and your partner wants the kid). If someone agrees that if a child results from their actions they will be responsible for its upkeep then they're on that particular hook for good, and can't wiggle out of financial responsibility. The time to decide whether or not one wants that responsibility is before the sex. After is too late. Making a bad choice is not the same as making no choice at all. We've all made bad decisions at some point; we just have to live with the consequences while wishing that we could go back in time and change things. We can't. So that scenario isn't really a factor to my mind.

As for the "they were lying" argument - people should be responsible for their own contraception. Maybe I am an untrusting bitch, but if some bloke told me he had had a vasectomy I would need to see medical results in my own hot little hands before believing it - and even then I might insist on a new test. People lie. Factor it in.

As for lying about what they'd do in case of accident - again, even if a potential partner was lying when he says he'd support the child - unlikely given I'm not naturally trusting and would need to know the person very well indeed (and that makes lying even more unlikely, given a) he would know that I was easily physically capable of ripping his balls off and shoving them down his throat if I found he lied and b) he would know that I would, because c) I would) - AFAIAC I slept with him in the stated expectation that he would fulfil his obligations if the worst occurred. If he was lying, tough. Teach him to tell the truth the next time - not that there'd be a next time, of course - he'd never father children again, lacking the equipment for it.

If someone lies that they'd support the kid, they're committed to it whether they were telling the truth or not. Don't want the kid, find someone else to fuck who shares your intentions.

In summary: People are too trusting. But they choose to be too trusting. Choose otherwise; protect yourself.

darjeeling, I do realise that there are cases we're not covering, but how many unplanned or unwanted (by at least one party) pregnancies result from anything but carelessness (not using contraception properly or at all) or accident following carelessness (contraception failure with unsuitable partner)? My guess is not many. My guess is that the bulk of unplanned, unwanted (by at least one party) pregnancies result from these two things - and yet they're things that each individual can largely protect themselves against.

If they don't, it's their lookout and their responsibility.

[darjeeling]

The "changing one's mind" scenario doesn't really wash with me, though. It's too late to change your mind once the kid is in existence (at least it is if you're a bloke, and your partner wants the kid).

I don't just mean after the baby is born. I mean any point along the way, and the point of no return is different for each situation. When it's "too late" depends on the people involved. For some people, the instant of conception is "too late." For some, when Plan B is no longer an option is "too late". For others, past the first trimester is too late. For yet some more, past the legal limit for abortion is too late. You get my point.

I was just trying to say that there are cases where someone is clearly dodging their responsibility, and breaking a promise or agreement to follow through with something is one of them. I view someone saying, "Let's have the baby. I'll help you take care of it" and then deciding to split after it's too late to change the course of action as a completely different situation from, say, Mr. X has a one night stand with Ms. Y, and 5 years later she goes after him for child support when she never told him she was pregnant in the first place.

The time to decide whether or not one wants that responsibility is before the sex. After is too late. Making a bad choice is not the same as making no choice at all. We've all made bad decisions at some point; we just have to live with the consequences while wishing that we could go back in time and change things. We can't. So that scenario isn't really a factor to my mind.

What do you mean it isn't a factor? I'm just pointing out that we can agree that in a situation like that, someone who breaks the agreement is completely responsible for the promise they made. That's a situation where someone openly said they would accept the responsibility but then reneged on that promise.

As for the "they were lying" argument - people should be responsible for their own contraception. Maybe I am an untrusting bitch, but if some bloke told me he had had a vasectomy I would need to see medical results in my own hot little hands before believing it - and even then I might insist on a new test. People lie. Factor it in.

I know. I'm saying that these are situations which could arise. You're describing what you would do and what people should do. I'm describing what people do, for better or worse.

Do you think your average 15 year old wants proof of the high school quarterback's non-existent vasectomy?

As for lying about what they'd do in case of accident - again, even if a potential partner was lying when he says he'd support the child - unlikely given I'm not naturally trusting and would need to know the person very well indeed (and that makes lying even more unlikely, given a) he would know that I was easily physically capable of ripping his balls off and shoving them down his throat if I found he lied and b) he would know that I would, because c) I would) - AFAIAC I slept with him in the stated expectation that he would fulfil his obligations if the worst occurred. If he was lying, tough. Teach him to tell the truth the next time - not that there'd be a next time, of course - he'd never father children again, lacking the equipment for it.

Again, you're looking at these issues from your own point of view and talking about what you personally would do.

In summary: People are too trusting. But they choose to be too trusting. Choose otherwise; protect yourself.

Some people have bad judgment. Others just make mistakes. Others are easily fooled or misled by people. Some are just too young. And just about everyone is affected by emotions and hormones. It's not a business transaction. People's judgment can get clouded easily.

darjeeling, I do realise that there are cases we're not covering, but how many unplanned or unwanted (by at least one party) pregnancies result from anything but carelessness (not using contraception properly or at all) or accident following carelessness (contraception failure with unsuitable partner)?

I can think of a handful of cases I've personally seen of pregnancy resulting despite responsible use of contraception. The birth control pill isn't perfect, unfortunately. Shit happens. People aren't automatically idiots because they got pregnant and didn't sign a contract with their partner beforehand.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Giving birth is after all the default result of a healthy pregnancy, planned or otherwise.

Septicaemia or gangrene is the default result of a wound. Starvation is the default result of caries. Death in childbirth is the default result of a footling breech presentation.

If you cut someone's arm, can they let nature take its course and sue you for giving them gangrene?

If you break someone's tooth, can they leave it to rot, slowly starve to death and have you charged with murder?

If you get someone pregnant, and it's facing the wrong way, can they attempt to freebirth the thing and have you liable for the morbidity/mortality that results?

The answer to all the above is FUCKING NO.

The 'default result' argument is stupid.

[Christina]

Well, hormones aside, I daresay there are plenty of people who never wanted a pet, but after taking in a stray have been seduced over to the dark side...

There's a shift in perspective. It changes things. A bit like, I suspect, the difference between knowing you're mortal and getting diagnosed with something fatal. Wait, hold up just one fucking second. You mean that I personally, myself, this person saying these words to you am going to... oh...

However much you accept it intellectually, it's not something that you actually come to terms with until it happens.

I'm not disagreeing with you but I want to know more about how you see this. If that shift in perspective that happens once someone finds out that they're pregnant is somewhat unavoidable for most women (if it is) does that change your opinion about the fairness of her choice if the man isn't willing to be a father at that point? Does she really even have a choice if her hormones or emotions or whatever kick in that strongly?

I'm starting to feel like Spock for not feeling more miserable about it back then.

[Matty]

A baby's born because two people made choices. Not one, two.
A choice to have sex sure, with the potential, but sex doesnt automatically mean pregnancy, nor does pregnancy necessarily mean childrearing. Those are subsequent choices to be made, invariably by the woman.

I basically agree with HNA, deadbeat fathers etc sure take them for a (realistic, not suicide inducingly high) maintenance payment. Anyone who says they are willing to be a parent and then bails when it all gets a bit real, or bails for any reason after Jr is born, should be liable for a full share of the costs. No question about it IMO.

That said, Someone who gets pregnant unintentionally (or sneakily) and then decides that against all wishes or sense she is keeping it, should have to shoulder more of the burden of their choice IMSHO.
not saying that there isnt an onus on either partner to look after their own contraception, there is of course, but that does no mean that the guy deserves a life sentence of curtailed wages just because the woman is either clueless, selfish, or religiously motivated.

The problem is that there is no way after conception, for both parties to have input regarding how to progress (unless the woman grants it) . Its the womans body and you cant force her to take a pill or have an abortion, its is completely her choice whether to keep it or not. As such it should be predominantly her responsibility to raise and pay for it if she chooses against the guys express wishes to keep it, for personal reasons. Personal reasons = personal responsibility IMO.

I agree that in all cases a base maintenance should be forthcoming, to cover half of Jrs basic needs, but no more.


I don't just mean after the baby is born. I mean any point along the way, and the point of no return is different for each situation. When it's "too late" depends on the people involved. For some people, the instant of conception is "too late." For some, when Plan B is no longer an option is "too late". For others, past the first trimester is too late. For yet some more, past the legal limit for abortion is too late. You get my point.

I was just trying to say that there are cases where someone is clearly dodging their responsibility, and breaking a promise or agreement to follow through with something is one of them. I view someone saying, "Let's have the baby. I'll help you take care of it" and then deciding to split after it's too late to change the course of action as a completely different situation from, say, Mr. X has a one night stand with Ms. Y, and 5 years later she goes after him for child support when she never told him she was pregnant in the first place.I agree.

[Christina]

Anyone who says they are willing to be a parent and then bails when it all gets a bit real...

I think that a lot of the problem is that people don't discuss it early in a relationship long before it happens. Each has their own expectations and it's easy to assume that the other feels the same way when you're in that infatuated stage of falling in love. People have a funny way of waking up quickly when their entire future is threatened. As bizarre and unromantic as it sounds, it might not be a bad idea for guys to get parental liability waivers signed as easily and casually as they put on a condom. A positive test and no waiver in hand, get ready to pay child support. You won't sign the waiver, go find a new guy willing to be a daddy. It's cold but at least everyone has put their cards on the table.

ETA: I should have added that this is about the garden variety consenting adults type of relationship, not teenagers or those that can be easily exploited.

[Cath B]

Giving birth is after all the default result of a healthy pregnancy, planned or otherwise.

Septicaemia or gangrene is the default result of a wound. Starvation is the default result of caries. Death in childbirth is the default result of a footling breech presentation.

If you cut someone's arm, can they let nature take its course and sue you for giving them gangrene?

If you break someone's tooth, can they leave it to rot, slowly starve to death and have you charged with murder?

If you get someone pregnant, and it's facing the wrong way, can they attempt to freebirth the thing and have you liable for the morbidity/mortality that results?

The answer to all the above is FUCKING NO.

The 'default result' argument is stupid.

Comparing these scenarios to having a baby strikes me as more than a little bizarre!

[Octavia]

It strikes me as bizarre too! One can reasonably expect - indeed it is the norm - for an individual to get health care following an injury. The expectation of abortion isn't the same thing. I don't know the numbers of abortions vs. completed pregnancies each year, but expecting that the percentage of those obtaining abortions is going to be anyway equal to to the percentage of those taking up healthcare after injury... well, bizarre is a good way to put it.

If you go into sex expecting abortion as the norm if your partner gets pregnant, and you haven't discussed it thoroughly beforehand, well, pie-in-the-sky optimism comes to mind.

[Loren Pechtel]

If the condom breaks, you're up for half a morning-after pill, frankly. If she chooses to do nothing and keep any resulting pregnancy, that's fine - but it's up to her, and not your problem.

The thing is, though, condoms aren't 100% effective. It would be great if they were, but they're not. Everybody knows this. Wear a condom; have him wear a condom - you're still voluntarily taking the risk of being saddled with a kid. It's a small risk, but it's there, and you know what you're doing. Any resulting kid can't make that claim - it bears no responsibility for its creation, and its needs should come first.

And this is why money should be poured into researching and providing 100% effective contraception. Preferably something that can be implanted at puberty and must be removed by a doctor before fertilisation can occur.

As for the small minority of freaks who impregnate themselves or another through dishonesty (stealing sperm, etc) - automatic loss of custodial rights, IMO. If the cheated party doesn't want the kid, put it up for adoption.

Sure, nothing's 100%. Use a condom and get pregnant anyway and the guy should be up for 1/2 of the cost of an abortion. I'll be generous and make it 100% of the cost, paid in advance so there's no possibility that she can't afford it.

If she takes a more expensive option that's her problem, not his.

[Sidhe747]

If the condom breaks, you're up for half a morning-after pill, frankly. If she chooses to do nothing and keep any resulting pregnancy, that's fine - but it's up to her, and not your problem.

The thing is, though, condoms aren't 100% effective. It would be great if they were, but they're not. Everybody knows this. Wear a condom; have him wear a condom - you're still voluntarily taking the risk of being saddled with a kid. It's a small risk, but it's there, and you know what you're doing. Any resulting kid can't make that claim - it bears no responsibility for its creation, and its needs should come first.

And this is why money should be poured into researching and providing 100% effective contraception. Preferably something that can be implanted at puberty and must be removed by a doctor before fertilisation can occur.

As for the small minority of freaks who impregnate themselves or another through dishonesty (stealing sperm, etc) - automatic loss of custodial rights, IMO. If the cheated party doesn't want the kid, put it up for adoption.

Sure, nothing's 100%. Use a condom and get pregnant anyway and the guy should be up for 1/2 of the cost of an abortion. I'll be generous and make it 100% of the cost, paid in advance so there's no possibility that she can't afford it.

If she takes a more expensive option that's her problem, not his.

I tried saying that earlier where did it get me, ostracised?!

Every sperm is apparently sacred?!

[Loren Pechtel]

If the condom breaks, you're up for half a morning-after pill, frankly. If she chooses to do nothing and keep any resulting pregnancy, that's fine - but it's up to her, and not your problem.

The thing is, though, condoms aren't 100% effective. It would be great if they were, but they're not. Everybody knows this. Wear a condom; have him wear a condom - you're still voluntarily taking the risk of being saddled with a kid. It's a small risk, but it's there, and you know what you're doing. Any resulting kid can't make that claim - it bears no responsibility for its creation, and its needs should come first.

And this is why money should be poured into researching and providing 100% effective contraception. Preferably something that can be implanted at puberty and must be removed by a doctor before fertilisation can occur.

As for the small minority of freaks who impregnate themselves or another through dishonesty (stealing sperm, etc) - automatic loss of custodial rights, IMO. If the cheated party doesn't want the kid, put it up for adoption.

Sure, nothing's 100%. Use a condom and get pregnant anyway and the guy should be up for 1/2 of the cost of an abortion. I'll be generous and make it 100% of the cost, paid in advance so there's no possibility that she can't afford it.

If she takes a more expensive option that's her problem, not his.

I tried saying that earlier where did it get me, ostracised?!

Every sperm is apparently sacred?!

Women want the unfair advantage that they currently have in society and they cry about the plight of the baby if they don't get their way.

Well, if the law were changed there probably wouldn't be as many such cases because they wouldn't stupidly not have an abortion.

[Sidhe747]

[QUOTE]If the condom breaks, you're I h
The thing is, though, condoms aren't 100% effective. It would be great if they were, but they're not. Everybody knows this. Wear a condom; have him wear a condom - you're still voluntarily taking the risk of being saddled with a kid. It's a small risk, but it's there, and you know what you're doing. Any resulting kid can't make that claim - it bears no responsibility for its creation, and its needs should come first.

And this is why money should be poured into researching and providing 100% effective contraception. Preferably something that can be implanted at puberty and must be removed by a doctor before fertilisation can occur.

As for the small minority of freaks who impregnate themselves or another through dishonesty (stealing sperm, etc) - automatic loss of custodial rights, IMO. If the cheated party doesn't want the kid, put it up for adoption.

Sure, nothing's 100%. Use a condom and get pregnant anyway and the guy should be up for 1/2 of the cost of an abortion. I'll be generous and make it 100% of the cost, paid in advance so there's no possibility that she can't afford it.

If she takes a more expensive option that's her problem, not his.

I tried saying that earlier where did it get me, ostracised?!

Every sperm is apparently sacred?!

Women want the unfair advantage that they currently have in society and they cry about the plight of the baby if they don't get their way.

Well, if the law were changed there probably wouldn't be as many such cases because they wouldn't stupidly not have an abortion.

I think I agree..

[Octavia]

Sure, nothing's 100%. Use a condom and get pregnant anyway and the guy should be up for 1/2 of the cost of an abortion. I'll be generous and make it 100% of the cost, paid in advance so there's no possibility that she can't afford it.

If she takes a more expensive option that's her problem, not his.

Being devil's advocate, here: why should he have to put up any money at all to the abortion?

The argument seems to be that the woman chooses to remain pregnant, therefore her choice, her responsibility, and forcing the man to bear responsibility for her choice is wrong.

One could just as easily argue, it seems to me, that if a woman chooses to have an abortion, it is her choice and her responsibility, and forcing the man to bear responsibility for her choice, by forking out cash to cover the abortion, is also wrong.

If not, why not?

To gloss over that little contradiction seems to me to be an implicit admission that the man is equally responsible for the pregnancy. If one were being consistent, the response should be: your pregnancy, your problem. If you can't afford an abortion, use a knitting needle or adopt it out.

[darjeeling]

Women want the unfair advantage that they currently have in society and they cry about the plight of the baby if they don't get their way.

Well, if the law were changed there probably wouldn't be as many such cases because they wouldn't stupidly not have an abortion.

Wow.

[Christina]

Wow.

Yeah, here we go with the gross overgeneralizations just when things were getting all logical and stuff. Some things aren't worth the headache...

[Octavia]

Women want the unfair advantage that they currently have in society and they cry about the plight of the baby if they don't get their way.

I have very little (actually: none at all) sympathy for these idiot women, but they're right. Removing support punishes the baby moreso than the parents. We don't advocate punishing the innocent in our justice system on the grounds that it would be a good example and stop others committing antisocial acts, so why would we support it in our social service system?

[darjeeling]

Women want the unfair advantage that they currently have in society and they cry about the plight of the baby if they don't get their way.

I have very little (actually: none at all) sympathy for these idiot women, but they're right. Removing support punishes the baby moreso than the parents. We don't advocate punishing the innocent in our justice system on the grounds that it would be a good example and stop others committing antisocial acts, so why would we support it in our social service system?

I definitely agree that removing support punishes the baby most of all. But that doesn't really help anyone answer the question of who should bear just how much responsibility and how that may change depending on the specifics of the situation.

[Christina]

In the US the government is going to support the mother and child for a reasonable amount of time but it's going to be at or below the poverty level. It's a quality of life issue more than a life and death issue but there is no denying that the child is going to have a far greater chance at a successful life if they're raised in a more financially stable environment.

I agree with darjeeling that what we're really talking about is who should and will pay for child support. The bottom line is that the government will pay to keep them alive but that just means that the public pays for it. I don't think that having even more children being raised in poverty or pushing the burden off onto taxpayers is a good solution even though I don't know what a good one is.

[Octavia]

I don't think that having even more children being raised in poverty or pushing the burden off onto taxpayers is a good solution even though I don't know what a good one is.

Oh, I agree. It's not a good solution at all. The only thing it has going for it is that it's slightly better than the child having no support whatsoever - kid's got to get food and shelter from somewhere.

State support is the last resort. My point is it's a necessary one. How we remove that necessity for a greater number of children is the question.

[darjeeling]

In the US, the government is going to support the mother and child for a reasonable amount of time but it's going to be at or below the poverty level. It's a quality of life issue more than a life and death issue but there is no denying that the child is going to have a far greater chance at a successful life if they're raised in a more financially stable environment.

That's true. At the same time, there are plenty of couples who have children but can't provide a financially stable environment. So the problem there isn't just single mothers raising kids alone because dad ran off and won't pay. Or vice versa. It's people having children when they can't afford them.

I agree with darjeeling that what we're really talking about is who should and will pay for child support. The bottom line is that the government will pay to keep them alive but that just means that the public pays for it. I don't think that having even more children being raised in poverty or pushing the burden off onto taxpayers is a good solution even though I don't know what a good one is.

I agree that it isn't a good solution. At least it's better than not having any kind of government safety net at all.

kid's got to get food and shelter from somewhere.

How about from the custodial parent who decided to keep the child?

[Christina]

State support is the last resort. My point is it's a necessary one. How we remove that necessity for a greater number of children is the question.

Yeah, it would be a lot easier to figure out what's fair and how to handle exceptions than it would be to get people to make sound decisions and take responsibility for their choices. No matter how perfect a theoretical system is, some women will continue to have unplanned pregnancies, choose to keep the baby and have idealistic dreams about how they'll still be able to finish college while trying to pay for rent, food and childcare on an AFDC check. No one plans to live in poverty but not everyone can be realistic enough to realize that their chances aren't good. No solution is going to feel good to me that results in a higher number of families that aren't self-sufficient.

[Octavia]

How about from the custodial parent who decided to keep the child?

How about from the people who created it?

Somehow, darjeeling, I think we're at an impasse here. :p

[Christina]

That's true. At the same time, there are plenty of couples who have children but can't provide a financially stable environment. So the problem there isn't just single mothers raising kids alone because dad ran off and won't pay. Or vice versa. It's people having children when they can't afford them.
I agree that it's a separate issue that goes far beyond this but I think that it would be exacerbated if it were the only form of child support legally available to some women. (The whole subject is a pet peeve of mine because a dozen people jumped down my throat at once for daring to suggest that AFDC payments shouldn't necessarily increase with each new child.)

ETA: They really do make more sense as two issues - what to do about children living in poverty and the ethical issues of child support. They just need to come together in the end so as not to make a big mess.

[darjeeling]

How about from the custodial parent who decided to keep the child?

How about from the people who created it?

Somehow, darjeeling, I think we're at an impasse here. :p

Again, it depends on the situation. We can come up with all sorts of detailed hypotheticals to shift responsibility around between the people involved.

Say he and she agree they don't want kids, but she ends up pregnant anyway. She has a change of heart and decides to keep it after all, despite his objections that he didn't want a kid and that neither of them can afford it. She carries to term and has the baby, even though she knows her minimum wage job is barely enough to cover rent and food for herself, much less the additional expenses of caring for a baby. He was clear the whole time about his feelings towards the issue. Should she bear more responsibility for the situation? What if he has hardly any income that wouldn't even make up the difference to fully provide for the baby's needs?

What about the one night stand hypothetical? Say she gets pregnant and doesn't try to find him to tell him because she wants to keep the baby and doesn't want him involved. Then a few years later, she goes after him for child support for a child he didn't even know he had.

What about the 16 year old girl who has the baby but is then overwhelmed with caring for it and runs off, leaving it with dad who didn't want her to have it in the first place?

[Octavia]

Again, it depends on the situation. We can come up with all sorts of detailed hypotheticals to shift responsibility around between the people involved.

Say he and she agree they don't want kids, but she ends up pregnant anyway. She has a change of heart and decides to keep it after all, despite his objections that he didn't want a kid and that neither of them can afford it. She carries to term and has the baby, even though she knows her minimum wage job is barely enough to cover rent and food for herself, much less the additional expenses of caring for a baby. He was clear the whole time about his feelings towards the issue. Should she bear more responsibility for the situation? What if he has hardly any income that wouldn't even make up the difference to fully provide for the baby's needs?

Tough. He's the father, he's responsible. It's not fair, I agree, but fairness to the child outweighs fairness to the father, given that one party bears partial responsibility when the other does not.

If the state has to step in to make sure the child is clothed and fed, then it has to step in.

What about the one night stand hypothetical? Say she gets pregnant and doesn't try to find him to tell him because she wants to keep the baby and doesn't want him involved. Then a few years later, she goes after him for child support for a child he didn't even know he had.

Responsibilities come with rights - you can't have one without the other. A father has a financial responsibility to his child, but he also has the right to be a parent, and to know the child growing up. Financial responsibility and access to the child start from where the father finds out about the child's existence. No back pay. If the father wants primary custody, it's automatically granted due to maternal negligence (wilfully depriving the child of paternal involvement), and she must pay child support.

What about the 16 year old girl who has the baby but is then overwhelmed with caring for it and runs off, leaving it with dad who didn't want her to have it in the first place?

Easy. Neither want the child, and they place it for adoption.

[darjeeling]

Tough. He's the father, he's responsible. It's not fair, I agree, but fairness to the child outweighs fairness to the father, given that one party bears partial responsibility when the other does not.

You can make the same "tough, X is responsible. It's not fair, but fairness to the child outweighs fairness to the parents" argument for banning elective abortion.

If the state has to step in to make sure the child gets a chance to be born, then it has to step in.

What about the one night stand hypothetical? Say she gets pregnant and doesn't try to find him to tell him because she wants to keep the baby and doesn't want him involved. Then a few years later, she goes after him for child support for a child he didn't even know he had.

Responsibilities come with rights - you can't have one without the other. A father has a financial responsibility to his child, but he also has the right to be a parent, and to know the child growing up. Financial responsibility and access to the child start from where the father finds out about the child's existence. No back pay. If the father wants primary custody, it's automatically granted due to maternal negligence (wilfully depriving the child of paternal involvement), and she must pay child support.

What if he wants nothing to do with it? Should he be obligated to pay even though the other person deliberately kept him in the dark?

What about the 16 year old girl who has the baby but is then overwhelmed with caring for it and runs off, leaving it with dad who didn't want her to have it in the first place?

Easy. Neither want the child, and they place it for adoption.

Not necessarily easy. Some people don't want to take care of their own kids but would be opposed to putting them up for adoption.

[Octavia]

You can make the same "tough, X is responsible. It's not fair, but fairness to the child outweighs fairness to the parents" argument for banning elective abortion.

If the state has to step in to make sure the child gets a chance to be born, then it has to step in.

I think that's a fair comment, especially with third trimester pregnancies. I've no problem having the state ban late abortions (for anything other than medical necessity) when the child is capable of surviving outside the womb. But a clump of cells, early in the pregnancy, doesn't merit the same protection. The state has no obligation towards it.

What if he wants nothing to do with it? Should he be obligated to pay even though the other person deliberately kept him in the dark?

Yes - because the child exists and he bears responsibility for its creation. The child takes priority.

Not necessarily easy. Some people don't want to take care of their own kids but would be opposed to putting them up for adoption.

I have no problem with the state being able to compel adoption in such cases. Someone has to take care of the child if the parents don't want to. Their being dog in the manger about it is so irresponsible that they deserve to lose custody. Again, the interests of the child come first.

[Octavia]

One more thing: does the "if a woman continues with the pregnancy it's her lookout only" crowd recognise that they are arguing for a world in which contraception is, for all practical purposes, solely the woman's responsibility?

[Christina]

No, I'm no more comfortable with that than I am with any other solution, but realistically I think that's the way it is anyway if you really don't want to get pregnant. Somewhere in here is a line for me between very casual relationships and ones where taking responsibility should be expected but I'm not sure where it is yet.

[Octavia]

Sure, I feel the same, but that's because I am a woman. I'm not going to trust anybody but me to deal with my own fertility. But - and here's the thing - if I were a man I can't imagine feeling any differently. I'd still want to be the one to control my own fertility - and yet the natural end of the "her body, her responsibility" argument, I think, is that contraception is solely the woman's responsibility.

That seems an uncomfortable conclusion for both sides.

[Christina]

But - and here's the thing - if I were a man I can't imagine feeling any differently. I'd still want to be the one to control my own fertility - and yet the natural end of the "her body, her responsibility" argument, I think, is that contraception is solely the woman's responsibility.

That seems an uncomfortable conclusion for both sides.

I'm not sure that there's any one way that most men feel. I've seen attitudes ranging from a complete lack of concern as to the pregnancies they might leave in their wake to a determination to be in control that bordered on paranoia. I've met men that were devastated when women they barely knew aborted what they saw as their child and ones that were horrified that they wouldn't. There's probably as much of a range of attitudes as we women have.

It would be interesting to hear from some of the guys here about how they would feel to know that they had children out there that they don't know and that might need help. Would it be easy to shrug and not worry about it? I can't really imagine that.

[Octavia]

I imagine it would be quite horrible to know you have a child out there who needs you. But seeing that some of the posters here are arguing for men's right to do a runner... that indicates to me that they think at least some men will have no problem doing so.

Please note that I don't think anyone here would actually do it.* Which makes it all the stranger to me that they're arguing that they should be able to.


*It only takes a single afternoon seeing Noodly dote on his boy, for instance, to make me think he'd never leave a child of his to grow up without him. Admittedly, though, he may have the cutest child on the planet; I'm sure that helps. :p

[TySixtus]

Yes - because the child exists and he bears responsibility for its creation. The child takes priority.


I agree. The mother had better get to work!

[TySixtus]

Sure, I feel the same, but that's because I am a woman. I'm not going to trust anybody but me to deal with my own fertility. But - and here's the thing - if I were a man I can't imagine feeling any differently. I'd still want to be the one to control my own fertility - and yet the natural end of the "her body, her responsibility" argument, I think, is that contraception is solely the woman's responsibility.

That seems an uncomfortable conclusion for both sides.

It is the only conclusion, if you count abortion as contraception. It doesn't matter if it is uncomfortable or not.

A woman has a choice -- have the baby, or not. The man has absolutely no say. You cannot sit there and say there is no moral problem with forcing him to pay for her decision. All you can do -- all anyone has done in this thread -- is assert that he does, by way of "He had a part in the decision when he decided to have sex" type arguments.

Which, as has been repeatedly pointed out (and not refuted by anyone) works both ways. I could just as easily say that if you're a woman and you want child support, tough fucking shit because you shouldn't have had sex. It's that simple, and equally dismissive.

[TySixtus]

I imagine it would be quite horrible to know you have a child out there who needs you. But seeing that some of the posters here are arguing for men's right to do a runner...

Could you poison the well any more?

I just took my 10 year old daughter out to dinner for her birthday. I had her when I was 17. I'm pretty qualified to have this conversation, and I have to say that your characterizing men who don't want to have a kid but are at the mercy of the mother as "runners" is pretty fucking pig-headed and insulting, whether you mean to apply it to anyone posting in this thread or not.

[darjeeling]

Sure, I feel the same, but that's because I am a woman. I'm not going to trust anybody but me to deal with my own fertility. But - and here's the thing - if I were a man I can't imagine feeling any differently. I'd still want to be the one to control my own fertility - and yet the natural end of the "her body, her responsibility" argument, I think, is that contraception is solely the woman's responsibility.

That seems an uncomfortable conclusion for both sides.

I think the logical conclusion to "it's my body, and no one can tell me what to do with it" is that what happens to my body is mostly my responsibility. Contraception is my responsibility, regardless of what anyone else is doing. If I had an unwanted pregnancy, I'd be the one having to make a choice, and that would happen even if we all agreed that men are 100% responsible for it and completely on the hook. I don't see how that's an uncomfortable conclusion.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Just as a hypothetical, imagine if men could get pregnant - by hoovering up your egg, or some such bizarre mechanism.

Imagine we could bear your child, against your will and despite your best efforts at contraception. And then expect you to pay for it.

[Octavia]

Which, as has been repeatedly pointed out (and not refuted by anyone) works both ways. I could just as easily say that if you're a woman and you want child support, tough fucking shit because you shouldn't have had sex. It's that simple, and equally dismissive.

The child support isn't for the woman, it's for the child. The child deserves support from its father whether the mother needs that support for it or not.

[TySixtus]

It's for the child she decided to have. A decision she made on her own.

[Octavia]

Could you poison the well any more?

I just took my 10 year old daughter out to dinner for her birthday. I had her when I was 17. I'm pretty qualified to have this conversation, and I have to say that your characterizing men who don't want to have a kid but are at the mercy of the mother as "runners" is pretty fucking pig-headed and insulting, whether you mean to apply it to anyone posting in this thread or not.

Bullshit. If you conceive a child with someone and don't take responsibility for it you are doing a runner, and that applies to women as well as men. It sucks to make bad choices, but if you will make them, knowingly, then there are consequences to your actions.

[Octavia]

Just as a hypothetical, imagine if men could get pregnant - by hoovering up your egg, or some such bizarre mechanism.

Imagine we could bear your child, against your will and despite your best efforts at contraception. And then expect you to pay for it.

Are you hoovering up my egg against my will, as by rape? If not, then it's my bloody responsibility as well as yours. If I had sex with you, knowing that you could get pregnant, and knowing that if you did get pregnant that you might decide to keep the baby, and knowing that if you did decide to keep the baby I would be financially liable, and if knowing all this I still choose to have sex with you then it's my damn fault as much as yours, no matter how unhappy it makes me to live up to it.

And I've willingly assumed the risk, after all. I might be very unhappy about it, but I would still realise that the priority is the child, who (unlike both me and you) bears no responsibility for its existence.

Unwanted pregnancies are not uncommon occurrences. One can reasonably foresee them happening. Hope that they don't, sure, but don't plan on it.

[darjeeling]

It sucks to make bad choices, but if you will make them, knowingly, then there are consequences to your actions.

This same exact argument could be used to justify almost anything. "It sucks that you made the bad choice of bringing the baby to term, but you did make the choice, knowingly, and there are consequences to your actions." Or "it sucks that you made the bad choice of giving birth when you knew you couldn't afford a child, but you did make the choice, knowingly, and there are consequences to your actions." And on and on.

[Octavia]

This same exact argument could be used to justify almost anything. "It sucks that you made the bad choice of bringing the baby to term, but you did make the choice, knowingly, and there are consequences to your actions." Or "it sucks that you made the bad choice of giving birth when you knew you couldn't afford a child, but you did make the choice, knowingly, and there are consequences to your actions." And on and on.

Of course it can. But there's a difference between paying for your own bad choices and forcing your child to pay for them. And unfortunately, if one uses the argument "the father shouldn't pay for the mother's choice (in carrying to term)", one can only let him off the hook by arguing that "the child should pay for the father's choice (not to be involved)".

It's internally inconsistent. Either one can be held to account for another's choice or one can't. Which is why the argument itself is flawed to begin with.

[darjeeling]

This same exact argument could be used to justify almost anything. "It sucks that you made the bad choice of bringing the baby to term, but you did make the choice, knowingly, and there are consequences to your actions." Or "it sucks that you made the bad choice of giving birth when you knew you couldn't afford a child, but you did make the choice, knowingly, and there are consequences to your actions." And on and on.

Of course it can. But there's a difference between paying for your own bad choices and forcing your child to pay for them. And unfortunately, if one uses the argument "the father shouldn't pay for the mother's choice (in carrying to term)", one can only let him off the hook by arguing that "the child should pay for the father's choice (not to be involved)".

People force children to pay for their bad decisions every single day. If a pregnant woman is concerned that her potential child will suffer or lead a shitty life but decides to continue with the pregnancy anyway, who's to blame?

How about another ridiculous hypothetical?: she gets pregnant by accident when he didn't want any children, and early on they find out that because of some medical problems or medications she's on, the embryo is likely to end up being a baby with severe birth defects or some kind of illness if it's brought to term. He thinks it'd be best to abort, but she insists on carrying to term anyway, even though she knows she doesn't have enough money to support a sick or special needs baby. Are they both equally responsible for the resulting situation?

It's internally inconsistent. Either one can be held to account for another's choice or one can't. Which is why the argument itself is flawed to begin with.

I don't get what you mean.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Just as a hypothetical, imagine if men could get pregnant - by hoovering up your egg, or some such bizarre mechanism.

Imagine we could bear your child, against your will and despite your best efforts at contraception. And then expect you to pay for it.

Are you hoovering up my egg against my will, as by rape? If not, then it's my bloody responsibility as well as yours. If I had sex with you, knowing that you could get pregnant, and knowing that if you did get pregnant that you might decide to keep the baby, and knowing that if you did decide to keep the baby I would be financially liable, and if knowing all this I still choose to have sex with you then it's my damn fault as much as yours, no matter how unhappy it makes me to live up to it.

And I've willingly assumed the risk, after all. I might be very unhappy about it, but I would still realise that the priority is the child, who (unlike both me and you) bears no responsibility for its existence.

Unwanted pregnancies are not uncommon occurrences. One can reasonably foresee them happening. Hope that they don't, sure, but don't plan on it.

Indeed. If they happen, you can abort, adopt or keep. Plans A, B and C. It's the mother's choice.

If we consent to a game of football and I break your tooth, it's only fair that I should pay to get it fixed.

It's not fair to expect me to fly you to Zurich to have it replaced with solid diamond, and it's not fair to expect me to pay for major reconstructive surgery on your jaw if you just left it to fester. I owe you for the cheapest reasonable option of the choice I forced you to make.

Claiming that the welfare of the child trumps fairness is a red herring, as plans A and B preclude either the very existence of the child or ongoing involvement in it's life.

[TySixtus]

Could you poison the well any more?

I just took my 10 year old daughter out to dinner for her birthday. I had her when I was 17. I'm pretty qualified to have this conversation, and I have to say that your characterizing men who don't want to have a kid but are at the mercy of the mother as "runners" is pretty fucking pig-headed and insulting, whether you mean to apply it to anyone posting in this thread or not.

Bullshit. If you conceive a child with someone and don't take responsibility for it you are doing a runner, and that applies to women as well as men. It sucks to make bad choices, but if you will make them, knowingly, then there are consequences to your actions.

You're asserting your conclusion, here, because the argument is: Does the man have responsibility for taking care of a kid he didn't want? If a woman doesn't want a kid, she doesn't have to have it. If the man doesn't want the kid . . . well, he's SOL, biologically. That doesn't mean there isn't some moral angle to it that supersedes the biological one.

[Sidhe747]

Could you poison the well any more?

I just took my 10 year old daughter out to dinner for her birthday. I had her when I was 17. I'm pretty qualified to have this conversation, and I have to say that your characterizing men who don't want to have a kid but are at the mercy of the mother as "runners" is pretty fucking pig-headed and insulting, whether you mean to apply it to anyone posting in this thread or not.

Bullshit. If you conceive a child with someone and don't take responsibility for it you are doing a runner, and that applies to women as well as men. It sucks to make bad choices, but if you will make them, knowingly, then there are consequences to your actions.

You're asserting your conclusion, here, because the argument is: Does the man have responsibility for taking care of a kid he didn't want? If a woman doesn't want a kid, she doesn't have to have it. If the man doesn't want the kid . . . well, he's SOL, biologically. That doesn't mean there isn't some moral angle to it that supersedes the biological one.

What would that be Divine command?

[Octavia]

It's internally inconsistent. Either one can be held to account for another's choice or one can't. Which is why the argument itself is flawed to begin with.

I don't get what you mean.

From what I understand, the argument is that it is wrong to force another person to bear the consequences of your choices:

Therefore, it is wrong to force the father to bear the consequences (child support, etc.) of the mother's choice to carry to term;

But it is not wrong to force the child to bear the consequences (no father) of the father's choice to not be involved.

To be consistent, if either is wrong under the original principle, both must be wrong. And yet arguing for the father's option to not be involved necessarily includes arguing for the father's right to inflict his absence upon the child - thus invalidating the principle behind the original argument.

Basically, you can't cherrypick one or the other. If indeed it is wrong to force another to bear the consequences of your choices, then it is necessarily and intrinsically wrong for the father to choose to have no relationship with his child - because it is primarily the child who suffers from the lack of paternal involvement.

[Octavia]

If we consent to a game of football and I break your tooth, it's only fair that I should pay to get it fixed.

Why?

One could argue that as it is my choice to get my tooth fixed, then no-one else should be forced to pay for the consequences of that choice.

It's the same with abortion. Under the "your choice, your responsibility" argument, the choice to get an abortion is entirely the mother's. Therefore she bears full responsibility - just as you argue she should if she makes another choice and carries to term. Neither choice, you say, belongs to the father, so his responsibility is moot. Splitting the value of that choice according to how much it costs is swapping principle for cash.

Offering to go halves on the abortion is a nice gesture, but consistently it is less a part of the logical argument you're putting forth and more, well, a sop to decent behaviour - or a bribe geared towards saving dad's cash.

Extending the "your choice, your responsibility" argument leaves the mother paying for her own abortion and me fixing my own tooth.

[Sidhe747]

If we consent to a game of football and I break your tooth, it's only fair that I should pay to get it fixed.

Why?

One could argue that as it is my choice to get my tooth fixed, then no-one else should be forced to pay for the consequences of that choice.

It's the same with abortion. Under the "your choice, your responsibility" argument, the choice to get an abortion is entirely the mother's. Therefore she bears full responsibility - just as you argue she should if she makes another choice and carries to term. Neither choice, you say, belongs to the father, so his responsibility is moot. Splitting the value of that choice according to how much it costs is swapping principle for cash.

Offering to go halves on the abortion is a nice gesture, but consistently it is less a part of the logical argument you're putting forth and more, well, a sop to decent behaviour.

Extending the "your choice, your responsibility" argument leaves the mother paying for her own abortion and me fixing my own tooth.

Send her a cheque?

[Octavia]

You're asserting your conclusion, here, because the argument is: Does the man have responsibility for taking care of a kid he didn't want? If a woman doesn't want a kid, she doesn't have to have it. If the man doesn't want the kid . . . well, he's SOL, biologically. That doesn't mean there isn't some moral angle to it that supersedes the biological one.

The thing is, he knows that he is SOL going in, if you'll pardon the pun. :p That he goes in anyway implies acceptance of reasonable risk - and it is a reasonable risk that a child will result.

All of us realise that sex frequently leads to pregnancy (even, sadly, with contraception), and that pregnancy frequently leads to an expensive and longterm outcome with dimples. Perhaps that should give the clue?

IPU knows I'm not saying sex should wait until marriage - Not. At. All. I'm not even arguing that sex should wait for a serious relationship. But everyone - men and women both - can reasonably foresee a situation where their contraception fails. Perhaps the responsible option - the one open to every individual, regardless of biology - is to reserve sex until a time when they can reasonably cope with any accidents?

But as darjeeling points out, there will always be people who aren't responsible - say, unprotected sex when drunk at a party, or people who don't think ahead, or others. This is where I think that that implied (or explicit, if discussed) consent comes in. We're all responsible for our actions - men and women both. We need to be extra responsible when another life is involved.

Personally - and this is going off on a slight tangent, if you'll forgive the trip - I think that the "her choice, her responsibility" argument, if enforced, will have the unfortunate effect of devaluing fatherhood overall. Especially with welfare provisions (which can't really be removed under the "no punishing the innocent" principle) there's likely to be more single parent families, and more families in which the father has no involvement whatsoever. It also means, to be fair, that families with fathers are likely to be closer and more involved than they are now, given that the father actively chooses to be a part of them. But that segment of society may become progressively smaller. Is this a good thing, I wonder? Perhaps there will be a shift towards uncles or grandfathers as the primary male influence on a child...?

[His Noodly Appendage]

Sex frequently leafs to pregnancy, and pregnancy can lead to an expensive longterm outcome with dimples, if the mother so chooses.

There's a phrase oft-used in the IT industry: lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part. Similarly, choosing to carry and/or raise a child you can't afford on your part does not constitute a financial obligation on my part.

Holding fathers ransom to the welfare of the child is a dodge, because the child wouldn't *have* a welfare if you aborted, and it wouldn't be either bioparent's problem if you adopted it out. To steal a line from Cold Mountain, you make the weather then stand in the rain crying "It's raining!". And to steal a line from me, tough shit.

If you want to cede the choice=responsibility argument, as you seem to be doing, and resort to the greater good of society, then I urge you to consider the effect on society on the rampant misogyny bound to this institutionalised injustice. Women face many inequities in this fucked-up society, but trying you counter that by adding new inequities in the opposite direction is a bad, wrong solution. By keeping the game adversarial, by laying the groundwork for traps and snares, by casting women in the role of parasitic temptresses, by casting men in the role of suckers, you just make a society far less willing to commit in the first place, thereby making your original problem far worse.

Zero-sum games *suck*.

[Sidhe747]

God plays zero sum games with himself. Creation results. :D

Let's hope God never has children eh?

[Christina]

No matter how much I think about it I can't define 'fair' without doing it in the context of prior agreements and many people in casual relationships don't even talk about it, never mind agree. Without those kind of binding agreements I think that it's always going to come down to a paternity test and nothing else. I think that a lot of people would end up reconsidering jumping into bed with each other if they already knew that the other person had expectations about them that they weren't willing to fulfill. Even though I never wanted children, if some guy told me that I was on my own if we had a birth control failure I would think that he was such a dick that I wouldn't go near him and that would end that problem right there. I think that a lot of guys would back off too if they knew that they were going to be expected to be a father for 18 years, like it or not.

[Octavia]

Sex frequently leafs to pregnancy, and pregnancy can lead to an expensive longterm outcome with dimples, if the mother so chooses.

There's a phrase oft-used in the IT industry: lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part. Similarly, choosing to carry and/or raise a child you can't afford on your part does not constitute a financial obligation on my part.

But it's the father's lack of planning that partially leads to the emergency in the first place! That another person also contributes to the emergency doesn't abrogate his role in it.

Holding fathers ransom to the welfare of the child is a dodge, because the child wouldn't *have* a welfare if you aborted, and it wouldn't be either bioparent's problem if you adopted it out. To steal a line from Cold Mountain, you make the weather then stand in the rain crying "It's raining!". And to steal a line from me, tough shit.

It isn't a dodge. If the mother can choose to carry to term, the father can choose whether he wants to be involved - according to your argument. What I'm saying is that your argument is logically inconsistent. You can't cry "your choice, your responsibility!" for the first, and not the second. That inconsistency means your argument is flawed - it has no merit.

If you want to cede the choice=responsibility argument, as you seem to be doing, and resort to the greater good of society, then I urge you to consider the effect on society on the rampant misogyny bound to this institutionalised injustice. Women face many inequities in this fucked-up society, but trying you counter that by adding new inequities in the opposite direction is a bad, wrong solution. By keeping the game adversarial, by laying the groundwork for traps and snares, by casting women in the role of parasitic temptresses, by casting men in the role of suckers, you just make a society far less willing to commit in the first place, thereby making your original problem far worse.

Am I ceding it? I assumed your reasoning briefly to show how that reasoning is logically inconsistent.

I also disagree that I'm trying to cast men in the role of suckers. What I am trying to do is get them to take responsibility for their own fertility, instead of pretending that they don't have any choice in the matter. If they do take responsibility, they won't be suckers. And the exact same thing goes for women!

Zero-sum games *suck*.

True, but I was thinking last night... wouldn't it have made more sense to research 100% effective contraception before researching Viagra? :evil:

I remember reading, about a decade ago, a scifi story - and I have no idea what it is, only the birth control part of it was in any way memorable - where every individual, at puberty, was given a compulsory, 100% effective contraceptive implant. When two people wanted to have a kid, they would go to the doctor and, after proof that they could support the child and had completed a parenting course, the implants would be removed. After the deed was done, they'd be reimplanted - after conception for the man, after labour for the woman. I always thought what a wonderfully organised way that was of dealing with things! Every child planned and wanted, born to responsible adults who could support it. Of course, that'd never happen in real life. There'd always be those Luddites who would refuse to have the implant, or who would refuse to get it implanted in their children (like those idiots who refuse to get their daughters the cervical cancer vaccine on the grounds that it would encourage her to be promiscuous).

But still... it would be nice.

[Loren Pechtel]

Sure, nothing's 100%. Use a condom and get pregnant anyway and the guy should be up for 1/2 of the cost of an abortion. I'll be generous and make it 100% of the cost, paid in advance so there's no possibility that she can't afford it.

If she takes a more expensive option that's her problem, not his.

Being devil's advocate, here: why should he have to put up any money at all to the abortion?

Unless it was a deliberate act on her part he should be liable for half the cost of fixing the problem. Half of an abortion is the cheapest way to do this. She's the one that has to put up with the procedure and thus I think he should pay something over half of the financial cost as it's impossible to split all the costs.

There is also the issue that she might not have the money to take the cheaper route. That's why I'm saying for him to pay the full cost up front--it's probably a bit more than his share should be but it eliminates any possibility of her not being able to afford it and as such seems like the best alternative to me.

One could just as easily argue, it seems to me, that if a woman chooses to have an abortion, it is her choice and her responsibility, and forcing the man to bear responsibility for her choice, by forking out cash to cover the abortion, is also wrong.

If not, why not?

What you are missing is that there is no cheaper alternative. Even if she puts it up for adoption there are the childbirth costs and they normally exceed the cost of an abortion.

To gloss over that little contradiction seems to me to be an implicit admission that the man is equally responsible for the pregnancy. If one were being consistent, the response should be: your pregnancy, your problem. If you can't afford an abortion, use a knitting needle or adopt it out.

Nobody's denied that he's equally responsible in most cases. (I would handle contraceptive fraud separately--100% of the cost is borne by the person guilty of the fraud and they don't get any say, either.)

In general if you or your property is harmed by accident the person doing the harm is responsible for the costs of putting things back the way they were. They are *NOT* responsible for any decisions of yours that increase the cost, however.

Put a golf ball through someone's window and you owe them a window. If they let it sit a month and the rain comes in and does damage you are *NOT* responsible for the water damage.

I'm simply applying this same standard to an oops.

[Loren Pechtel]

One more thing: does the "if a woman continues with the pregnancy it's her lookout only" crowd recognise that they are arguing for a world in which contraception is, for all practical purposes, solely the woman's responsibility?

1) She can require him to use a condom.

2) Note that I favor treating contraceptive fraud differently.

[Loren Pechtel]

Which, as has been repeatedly pointed out (and not refuted by anyone) works both ways. I could just as easily say that if you're a woman and you want child support, tough fucking shit because you shouldn't have had sex. It's that simple, and equally dismissive.

The child support isn't for the woman, it's for the child. The child deserves support from its father whether the mother needs that support for it or not.

And she can't care for it herself? You have a pretty low opinion of women!

[Octavia]

And she can't care for it herself? You have a pretty low opinion of women!

Are you really arguing that if the mother can care for the child herself, there is no reason whatsoever for a father to be involved? That if the mother can take care of the child herself, the dad is irrelevant?

If we're throwing around each other's low opinions, you seem to have a pretty bad one of fathers.

[Octavia]

What you are missing is that there is no cheaper alternative. Even if she puts it up for adoption there are the childbirth costs and they normally exceed the cost of an abortion.

I'm not missing it; I just don't think it's relevant. Either the abortion is her choice or it is not. Either she is wholly responsible for her own choice or she is not - at least, that's what I'm told.

If the posters who argue this truly believe it, they'd see no need to help pay for an abortion - after all, it's entirely the woman's choice to have the abortion, and it is wrong, oh so wrong, to force another to bear the financial consequences of a choice they had no part in.

You can't have it both ways. It's nice (and may be in their own interest) for the father to offer to pay for the abortion, but it - according to the reasoning of said posters - is in no way logically necessary.

In fact, offering to pay for an abortion actually negates their position somewhat, as it implies that they knew and accepted the right of the woman to make the choice to abort or not to abort, and are willing to hold themselves financially liable for that choice.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Okay, want to start counting the ways mandatory contraception with a barrier to reversal woul get exploited?

[Octavia]

Nope, because I'm well aware that it would be! :)

Every child planned and wanted, and born to responsible parents... It's just nice to dream, is all.

[darjeeling]

From what I understand, the argument is that it is wrong to force another person to bear the consequences of your choices:

Therefore, it is wrong to force the father to bear the consequences (child support, etc.) of the mother's choice to carry to term;

But it is not wrong to force the child to bear the consequences (no father) of the father's choice to not be involved.

Only because there were other options during the pregnancy that wouldn't have resulted in a child, and the other person has no power in making that decision. As they shouldn't have, since it's not their body and not their choice to make.

And you can't force people to be parents. Ever. Even if daddy is a billionaire who gives the kid a ridiculous amount of money every month but never even sees him, the child is still "bearing the consequences" of having no father.

Basically, you can't cherrypick one or the other.

I'm not cherry-picking one or the other. I'm saying if a woman decides to bring a baby to term, knowing full well that the father wants absolutely nothing to do with it, she's more responsible for bringing a child into a situation where it has no father than the father is. She's the one more responsible for forcing the kid to deal with the consequences because there were other choices available even after conception.

If indeed it is wrong to force another to bear the consequences of your choices, then it is necessarily and intrinsically wrong for the father to choose to have no relationship with his child - because it is primarily the child who suffers from the lack of paternal involvement.

Then we should make a law that forces both people to be involved parents, right? What do you then do about divorce situations where one person gets custody of the children and all of a sudden, the biological parents are living in different states or even countries? How do you force people to be involved parents?

It's the same with abortion. Under the "your choice, your responsibility" argument, the choice to get an abortion is entirely the mother's.

And you agree with that, right?

Therefore she bears full responsibility - just as you argue she should if she makes another choice and carries to term.

Right. It's my body, and I'm the one who has to make the decision. I don't want anyone to have any power in making that decision for me, even if it means I have to take full responsibility for what happens afterward.

Offering to go halves on the abortion is a nice gesture, but consistently it is less a part of the logical argument you're putting forth and more, well, a sop to decent behaviour - or a bribe geared towards saving dad's cash.

Right, it's what someone who isn't a piece of shit would do. And someone who isn't a piece of shit would also, at the very least, provide minimum financial support if the mother decided to carry the baby to term. She bears responsibility for choosing to give birth, but I would hope the father would help out out of a sense of compassion and sympathy, at least.

Extending the "your choice, your responsibility" argument leaves the mother paying for her own abortion and me fixing my own tooth.

But switching to "my choice, your responsibility" opens the door for giving people influence on your choice. If he's going to be held responsible, why can't he have a say in the decision you make?

We're all responsible for our actions - men and women both. We need to be extra responsible when another life is involved.

Another life isn't involved until the third trimester (or whenever you choose to draw the line). Or are you arguing that another life is involved the instant of conception? In that case, then abortion or even the morning after pill would be tantamount to killing a child.

Personally - and this is going off on a slight tangent, if you'll forgive the trip - I think that the "her choice, her responsibility" argument, if enforced, will have the unfortunate effect of devaluing fatherhood overall.

Why? That's not a logical conclusion. Not every single man hates the idea of being a father, and even men who end up in a situation where their wife or girlfriend gets accidentally pregnant look forward to having a child.

Especially with welfare provisions (which can't really be removed under the "no punishing the innocent" principle) there's likely to be more single parent families, and more families in which the father has no involvement whatsoever.

Requiring financial involvement doesn't change jack fucking shit, though. You can't mandate that parents be actually involved in their children's lives. All you can do is pay the mother a certain amount each month and collect from the father.

It also means, to be fair, that families with fathers are likely to be closer and more involved than they are now, given that the father actively chooses to be a part of them.

Again, why would it be any different? Not every man whose wife or girlfriend gets accidentally pregnant is going to feel the same way. Not every man is going to automatically want to cut loose. Some people have accidents and end up being actually happy about them.

But it's the father's lack of planning that partially leads to the emergency in the first place!

How do you know it was lack of planning? It's not lack of planning in every case.

I always thought what a wonderfully organised way that was of dealing with things! Every child planned and wanted, born to responsible adults who could support it. Of course, that'd never happen in real life. There'd always be those Luddites who would refuse to have the implant, or who would refuse to get it implanted in their children (like those idiots who refuse to get their daughters the cervical cancer vaccine on the grounds that it would encourage her to be promiscuous).

But still... it would be nice.

Who would decide who can be parents? It'd be incredibly easy to use a system like that to deny certain groups the right to procreate.

[Bane]

IMO, it's silly for guys to be so trusting of a girl they recently met when she say's she's on the pill. If I were a guy, I'd be like "Tough shit, babe, I'm wrapping my mages' staff and that's final" ;) So if he's gonna be that trusting it's his fault too, and he should deal with the consequences on his part.

Also: excuse nerd humour on my part. I am a geek.

[TySixtus]

You're asserting your conclusion, here, because the argument is: Does the man have responsibility for taking care of a kid he didn't want? If a woman doesn't want a kid, she doesn't have to have it. If the man doesn't want the kid . . . well, he's SOL, biologically. That doesn't mean there isn't some moral angle to it that supersedes the biological one.

The thing is, he knows that he is SOL going in, if you'll pardon the pun. :p That he goes in anyway implies acceptance of reasonable risk - and it is a reasonable risk that a child fertilized egg will result.


Completely different.

[TySixtus]

IMO, it's silly for guys to be so trusting of a girl they recently met when she say's she's on the pill. If I were a guy, I'd be like "Tough shit, babe, I'm wrapping my mages' staff and that's final" ;) So if he's gonna be that trusting it's his fault too, and he should deal with the consequences on his part.

Also: excuse nerd humour on my part. I am a geek.

It's the same argument, over and over again. :bang:

[Octavia]

From what I understand, the argument is that it is wrong to force another person to bear the consequences of your choices:

Therefore, it is wrong to force the father to bear the consequences (child support, etc.) of the mother's choice to carry to term;

But it is not wrong to force the child to bear the consequences (no father) of the father's choice to not be involved.

Only because there were other options during the pregnancy that wouldn't have resulted in a child, and the other person has no power in making that decision. As they shouldn't have, since it's not their body and not their choice to make.

And you can't force people to be parents. Ever. Even if daddy is a billionaire who gives the kid a ridiculous amount of money every month but never even sees him, the child is still "bearing the consequences" of having no father.

Sure that child is, which is why parents ideally bear more responsibility than just the financial.

But logically following on from the "mother has the choice to carry to term" argument is the "father has the choice to be involved" argument. The choice to be involved is as separate from the choice to carry to term as the choice to participate in sex is to the choice to carry to term. Under the argument being put forth, that is. There's no escaping it, sorry.

And because the choice to not having anything to do with the child exists, the entire argument is invalidated.

Basically, you can't cherrypick one or the other.

I'm not cherry-picking one or the other. I'm saying if a woman decides to bring a baby to term, knowing full well that the father wants absolutely nothing to do with it, she's more responsible for bringing a child into a situation where it has no father than the father is. She's the one more responsible for forcing the kid to deal with the consequences because there were other choices available even after conception.

There were other choices available than penetrative sex, but the father didn't choose to avail himself of those cheaper, less risky options, did he? And yet that makes no difference to the mother's option to abort. Her saying "you could have chosen a cheaper option!" to the father doesn't abrogate her having to make a separate decision on what to do with her body. (And yes, she also chose to have penetrative sex - I'm just pointing out there are other choices available.)

The choice to carry to term is related to the choice of BOTH parents to engage in penetrative sex, but is separate from it. Similarly, the choice to become involved, while related to the choice to carry to term, is distinct from it. That each decision that has to be made is in consequence to the one before it doesn't mean that the individual doesn't have complete freedom to make the choice that they do - under your argument.

Again, you can't special plead for causality for one but not for the other. It's cherry-picking.

If indeed it is wrong to force another to bear the consequences of your choices, then it is necessarily and intrinsically wrong for the father to choose to have no relationship with his child - because it is primarily the child who suffers from the lack of paternal involvement.

Then we should make a law that forces both people to be involved parents, right? What do you then do about divorce situations where one person gets custody of the children and all of a sudden, the biological parents are living in different states or even countries? How do you force people to be involved parents?

I don't know. We do have laws (varying from country to country, naturally) enforcing financial involvement and access to the child, so some basis is there from that angle.

It's the same with abortion. Under the "your choice, your responsibility" argument, the choice to get an abortion is entirely the mother's.

And you agree with that, right?

Therefore she bears full responsibility - just as you argue she should if she makes another choice and carries to term.

Right. It's my body, and I'm the one who has to make the decision. I don't want anyone to have any power in making that decision for me, even if it means I have to take full responsibility for what happens afterward.

I would agree, but I would say that I should take full responsibility for the conception as well as the birth.

Offering to go halves on the abortion is a nice gesture, but consistently it is less a part of the logical argument you're putting forth and more, well, a sop to decent behaviour - or a bribe geared towards saving dad's cash.

Right, it's what someone who isn't a piece of shit would do. And someone who isn't a piece of shit would also, at the very least, provide minimum financial support if the mother decided to carry the baby to term. She bears responsibility for choosing to give birth, but I would hope the father would help out out of a sense of compassion and sympathy, at least.

Argh, these quote tags! I have a feeling I'm going to have to edit and re-edit to get them right...

Yes, it is the decent thing to do. But that it's the decent thing is neither this nor that under the "you chose to carry to term, it's your responsibility to raise the kid" argument. That argument legitimises being "a piece of shit" - indeed, it turns it into not-shittiness, if you know what I mean.

Extending the "your choice, your responsibility" argument leaves the mother paying for her own abortion and me fixing my own tooth.

But switching to "my choice, your responsibility" opens the door for giving people influence on your choice. If he's going to be held responsible, why can't he have a say in the decision you make?

He did have a say - during the sex. For men and women both, IMO, acceptance of sex includes acceptance that, in certain ways, sex is a risky activity. If you know that contraceptive failure might leave you lumbered with a child, and you willingly take that risk anyway - that's consent to the level of risk, in my book. If you can reasonably foresee a chain of events that leaves you holding the bag, it's your lookout whether to risk setting that chain in motion. Of course one can limit that risk via sensible choice of partner and multiple forms of contraception, but consenting to that risk is voluntary.

We're all responsible for our actions - men and women both. We need to be extra responsible when another life is involved.

Another life isn't involved until the third trimester (or whenever you choose to draw the line). Or are you arguing that another life is involved the instant of conception? In that case, then abortion or even the morning after pill would be tantamount to killing a child.

No - I was referring to when the child was born. Given that both parents contributed to its creation, it's their responsibility to look after it. And given that it's in the best interests of the child for both parents to live up to their responsibility, the onus is on them to take that responsibility very seriously.

Of course, this depends on personal belief. If you're one of those (or with one of those) who thinks that conception = life, then you should probably take that into account when assessing risk.

Personally - and this is going off on a slight tangent, if you'll forgive the trip - I think that the "her choice, her responsibility" argument, if enforced, will have the unfortunate effect of devaluing fatherhood overall.

Why? That's not a logical conclusion. Not every single man hates the idea of being a father, and even men who end up in a situation where their wife or girlfriend gets accidentally pregnant look forward to having a child.

Of course they don't! Nowhere did I state that every single man hates the idea of becoming a father. But being a parent is hard and expensive. If one doesn't want the child, then it's naive to think that legitimised abandonment of it wouldn't be an attractive option.

Especially with welfare provisions (which can't really be removed under the "no punishing the innocent" principle) there's likely to be more single parent families, and more families in which the father has no involvement whatsoever.

Requiring financial involvement doesn't change jack fucking shit, though. You can't mandate that parents be actually involved in their children's lives. All you can do is pay the mother a certain amount each month and collect from the father.

Financial involvement is involvement - albeit of the most basic sort.

It also means, to be fair, that families with fathers are likely to be closer and more involved than they are now, given that the father actively chooses to be a part of them.

Again, why would it be any different? Not every man whose wife or girlfriend gets accidentally pregnant is going to feel the same way. Not every man is going to automatically want to cut loose. Some people have accidents and end up being actually happy about them.

Yes, of course they do. But let's not pretend that if there is an easier option out there it wouldn't be taken up. Look at the amount of (for all practical purposes) fatherless families today - and that's with the state mandate of financial involvement. Make it socially acceptable for there to be no involvement whatsoever, and do you honestly think that number would drop? If so, bridge in Brooklyn and all that.

But it's the father's lack of planning that partially leads to the emergency in the first place!

How do you know it was lack of planning? It's not lack of planning in every case.

"If my partner and I have an accident, will I be able to cope with X, Y, Z?" Yes, or no. Options differ depending on which answer you pick.

For instance: if I found I was pregnant tomorrow, I wouldn't be happy. But I could cope - I'm a grown woman with a good education and I could make a good life for myself and my baby. BUT - flash back 15 years to when I was in high school, and thinking about the same scenario (which I did). I knew quite well that I wouldn't be able to cope, that I'd have to drop out of school with no qualifications to fall back on and no way of providing for myself and my baby. I assessed the risk of sex with contraception and found it too great - ergo, I did not have sex while I was still in high school.

That planning doesn't fail, and everybody is capable of it.

I always thought what a wonderfully organised way that was of dealing with things! Every child planned and wanted, born to responsible adults who could support it. Of course, that'd never happen in real life. There'd always be those Luddites who would refuse to have the implant, or who would refuse to get it implanted in their children (like those idiots who refuse to get their daughters the cervical cancer vaccine on the grounds that it would encourage her to be promiscuous).

But still... it would be nice.

Who would decide who can be parents? It'd be incredibly easy to use a system like that to deny certain groups the right to procreate.

Would it? I don't remember all the conditions, but it should be relatively easy to cobble together a hypothetical list that doesn't discriminate on anything but a practical level.

[Octavia]

The thing is, he knows that he is SOL going in, if you'll pardon the pun. :p That he goes in anyway implies acceptance of reasonable risk - and it is a reasonable risk that a child fertilized egg will result.


Completely different.

Sorry for being unclear - I missed a step in the chain.

There's a reasonable risk that a fertilised egg will result from sex, and a reasonable risk that a child will result from a fertilised egg. Ergo, there's a reasonable risk that a child will result from sex.

Acceptance of that risk is voluntary for both men and women.

[TySixtus]

Accepting the risk of a fertilized egg is voluntary for both men and women. The man has nothing to do with the process of carrying a fetus to term and actually having the baby. That is a decision completely, 100% up to the woman. She can do whatever she wants. Again I ask, how can you hold the man financially responsible for the actions of the woman, when he has exactly zero input in the decision making process?

[Octavia]

Because he gave his consent to her making the decision for the pair of them when he willingly accepted the risk of sex.

If he knew that sex with her could conceivably create a fertilised egg, and he knew that she could conceivably carry to term, and he knew that if she did he would be liable, and he still chose to go ahead, he willingly and knowingly accepted that if a baby did result he would be liable. If he's not in a position to accept responsibility for that risk, then he should accept responsibility for his own fertility instead and not take the risk*. These are not unreasonable or unforseeable risks, after all. Two happen every day, and the third (you will be (at least financially) liable) is enshrined in legislation.

If I choose to invest capital with a broker, and give the broker carte blanche to make decisions about investing that capital on my behalf - and that broker makes a decision that loses me my investment, then I still lose the capital even though it wasn't me that made the final decision about where to invest, because I had knowingly granted him decision-making powers. I don't get to say, "Wait, I want a do-over! I shouldn't have agreed with your making the investment decisions, so give me my money back!" I have to take it on the chin that I made a bad investment choice.


*Just like women should do if they are in a position where they can't deal with the risk of abortion, adoption, or raising a child.

[Bane]

Yeah, I agree, Octavia.


Blatant silliness ITT though....

[Loren Pechtel]

And she can't care for it herself? You have a pretty low opinion of women!

Are you really arguing that if the mother can care for the child herself, there is no reason whatsoever for a father to be involved? That if the mother can take care of the child herself, the dad is irrelevant?

If we're throwing around each other's low opinions, you seem to have a pretty bad one of fathers.

No. I'm saying that the notion that she can't bear the cost herself is unreasonable.

I have no problem at all with child support of a wanted child. I have a big problem with child support for a child he never wanted but is burdened with the cost due to her choice of a more expensive option.

[Loren Pechtel]

What you are missing is that there is no cheaper alternative. Even if she puts it up for adoption there are the childbirth costs and they normally exceed the cost of an abortion.

I'm not missing it; I just don't think it's relevant. Either the abortion is her choice or it is not. Either she is wholly responsible for her own choice or she is not - at least, that's what I'm told.

You're mixing up two separate factors.

There are *TWO* events involved.

1) The pregnancy.

2) What to do about it.

Both parties had a role in the pregnancy, both are responsible for the costs.

However, the second choice is entirely hers and she should bear the whole responsibility for this decision.

An abortion makes her whole and is the cheapest option. In no other legal area would he be responsible for her choosing the more expensive option. If you break my property and I choose to replace it with something better you only owe the value of the original property, not the upgrade.

[Loren Pechtel]

IMO, it's silly for guys to be so trusting of a girl they recently met when she say's she's on the pill. If I were a guy, I'd be like "Tough shit, babe, I'm wrapping my mages' staff and that's final" ;) So if he's gonna be that trusting it's his fault too, and he should deal with the consequences on his part.

Also: excuse nerd humour on my part. I am a geek.

http://humor.sportse.org/funny-harry-potter.jpg


I agree with you.

[TySixtus]

Because he gave his consent to her making the decision for the pair of them when he willingly accepted the risk of sex.

Well this is your assertion. This is actually the problem. Currently, this is how people think. What HNA and I are arguing is that this mode of thought is pretty faulty. You don't give consent for someone make decisions for you when you have sex. It is morally and philosophically untenable.

This is the way the system works now. You're pointing at it as some kind of argument, when some of us are pointing out the how the system doesn't make sense to begin with. Ergo you're not offering any compelling argument. I don't need you to rehash for me how the general thought process works. I already know a bunch of people think that having sex puts you on the hook for a child. It's that stupid line of reasoning that I have a problem with.

[Octavia]

People think it because it's a valid and logical argument. I find it pretty morally and philosophically tenable, myself (unlike the argument that you and HNA are putting forth). Each one of us has the choice to control our fertility; each one of us is capable of doing so. Choosing not to, and then trying to make out that you never had the choice in the first place, is what's untenable.

[Octavia]

I have a big problem with child support for a child he never wanted but is burdened with the cost due to her choice of a more expensive option.

I have a big problem with people voluntarily taking on the risk of children and then baulking when the risk that they voluntarily assumed materialises.

No-one is forced to take on that risk. If a person can't handle it, then they should have the common sense and self-preservation necessary to realise it and act accordingly, instead of distancing themselves and refusing to take responsibility for their own decisions.

If you don't want to be a parent, or can't afford to be a parent, make the right decisions and you won't have to be one. That goes for men and women both. It's not something forced on a reluctant party, it's something that party has inflicted on themselves through poor decision-making.

[TySixtus]

People think it because it's a valid and logical argument. I find it pretty morally and philosophically tenable, myself (unlike the argument that you and HNA are putting forth). Each one of us has the choice to control our fertility; each one of us is capable of doing so. Choosing not to, and then trying to make out that you never had the choice in the first place, is what's untenable.

We just keep going around and around, with points unaddressed. No offense, but this conversation should probably just end.

[darjeeling]

Only because there were other options during the pregnancy that wouldn't have resulted in a child, and the other person has no power in making that decision. As they shouldn't have, since it's not their body and not their choice to make.

And you can't force people to be parents. Ever. Even if daddy is a billionaire who gives the kid a ridiculous amount of money every month but never even sees him, the child is still "bearing the consequences" of having no father.

Sure that child is, which is why parents ideally bear more responsibility than just the financial.

But logically following on from the "mother has the choice to carry to term" argument is the "father has the choice to be involved" argument.

Well, they do have a choice to be involved, even with the current system we have now. The only thing a biological father is ever obligated to do is pay the state for the money they're giving the mother. And for that matter, the mother has the choice to be involved, too. There are mothers who give birth and leave the baby with the father or with other family and never look back.

The choice to be involved is as separate from the choice to carry to term as the choice to participate in sex is to the choice to carry to term. Under the argument being put forth, that is. There's no escaping it, sorry.

Well, it is a separate choice. The choice to be involved comes after the birth of the baby. Parents make the most fundamental choice about being involved by deciding to either keep it or give it up for adoption or leave it with other family.

And because the choice to not having anything to do with the child exists, the entire argument is invalidated.

I'm not following.

There were other choices available than penetrative sex, but the father didn't choose to avail himself of those cheaper, less risky options, did he?

There were other choices available than getting together with that particular individual. Or picking that precise moment to have sex. Or taking the birth control pill a few hours later than she usually does. And so on and so forth.

There are different stages where decisions are being made. You're conflating the agreement to have sex with the agreement to conceive with the agreement to carry to term with the agreement to keep the baby and with the agreement to raise it. We're just going around in circles, now.

And yet that makes no difference to the mother's option to abort. Her saying "you could have chosen a cheaper option!" to the father doesn't abrogate her having to make a separate decision on what to do with her body.

Right. I said something similar. Regardless of whatever situation we can come up with, she's responsible for making the choice. She's the only one who can do that.

If you insist that the man is on the hook for absolutely everything that happens from the moment of conception, then why shouldn't he have a say as to what happens? Why should the woman be able to make those decisions completely on her own with no input from the man? If he's going to be held responsible for her decisions, he should have a say in it, no?

I bet your response is going to be "he made his decision when he had sex" -- to which I say, so did she, so why should she be allowed to have an abortion?

I don't know. We do have laws (varying from country to country, naturally) enforcing financial involvement and access to the child, so some basis is there from that angle.

So you think that should lead to laws mandating that people be involved parents? Really?

I would agree, but I would say that I should take full responsibility for the conception as well as the birth.

If you're taking full responsibility, then why does it matter whether he takes any responsibility at all?

Yes, it is the decent thing to do. But that it's the decent thing is neither this nor that under the "you chose to carry to term, it's your responsibility to raise the kid" argument. That argument legitimises being "a piece of shit" - indeed, it turns it into not-shittiness, if you know what I mean.

No, it doesn't.

If I'm walking down the street and see an old lady on the ground who tripped and fell, I'm not responsible for helping her up and making sure she's okay. But I'd be a piece of shit if I ignored her and kept walking. The fact that it's not my responsibility doesn't suddenly make it not shitty to ignore her.

He did have a say - during the sex. For men and women both, IMO, acceptance of sex includes acceptance that, in certain ways, sex is a risky activity.

This is the same exact argument used to justify abortion bans. You consented to having a child when you had sex, so tough fucking shit. If you were truly worried about having a child, you shouldn't have had sex.

Of course they don't! Nowhere did I state that every single man hates the idea of becoming a father. But being a parent is hard and expensive. If one doesn't want the child, then it's naive to think that legitimised abandonment of it wouldn't be an attractive option.

There are already plenty of legitimized forms of abandonment. If someone doesn't want to be a parent, you can't force them.

Financial involvement is involvement - albeit of the most basic sort.

So do you think that the kid whose mom gets a check from the state every month has a father, despite the fact that dad lives on the other side of the country and has never seen his kid? Getting a child support check isn't exactly "involvement". It's financial support. You were talking about the child suffering from having no father, which still happens all the damn time, even with dads who pay child support.

But let's not pretend that if there is an easier option out there it wouldn't be taken up.

What options would be easier, compared to the current situation? A biological parent can be completely uninvolved in the child's life with the exception of wage garnishing, if the custodial parent decides to request child support. If I were a non-custodial parent, I could have a child who lives in another state, and the only thing I'd ever have to do is look at the wage garnishments on my paychecks. That's it.

Look at the amount of (for all practical purposes) fatherless families today - and that's with the state mandate of financial involvement. Make it socially acceptable for there to be no involvement whatsoever, and do you honestly think that number would drop? If so, bridge in Brooklyn and all that.

First of all, I'm not arguing for removing the current child support system. And even if they did, it wouldn't suddenly become "socially acceptable." The "deadbeat dad" stereotype is always going to be negative.

I assessed the risk of sex with contraception and found it too great - ergo, I did not have sex while I was still in high school.

How many teenagers do you think do that? It's not exactly common for kids with raging hormones to sit down and logically assess the statistical probability of getting pregnant, comparing the effectiveness of different methods of birth control.

That planning doesn't fail, and everybody is capable of it.

Of course everybody is capable of it. But people are also driven by emotions and hormones. You can't treat a topic like this the same way that you treat a business transaction with an investment broker.

[Octavia]

We just keep going around and around, with points unaddressed. No offense, but this conversation should probably just end.

None taken. On this, at least, I think you're right. :p

I don't think either of us can be convinced to change our opinions. We'll just have to call this one a draw. :)

[Octavia]

Well, they do have a choice to be involved, even with the current system we have now. The only thing a biological father is ever obligated to do is pay the state for the money they're giving the mother. And for that matter, the mother has the choice to be involved, too. There are mothers who give birth and leave the baby with the father or with other family and never look back.

I still think financial involvement counts as involvement (albeit of the most basic kind) but other than that, agreed.

Well, it is a separate choice. The choice to be involved comes after the birth of the baby. Parents make the most fundamental choice about being involved by deciding to either keep it or give it up for adoption or leave it with other family.

Agreed.

I'm not following.

I must not be explaining it very well, but I'm stuck as to where I'm not explaining it well enough. There are three points:

1) In this thread, at least, one argument is that it is wrong to expect another to bear the consequences of your choice. Thus, according to this argument, it is wrong for the mother to choose to carry to term, and then expect the father to become involved. It wasn't his choice, therefore he shouldn't have to bear the consequences. Right?

2) But if - in a separate decision, as you say - the father chooses not to be involved in the child's life, then it is primarily the child that suffers that loss (kid has no dad). Thus the child is bearing the consequences of the father's choice not to be involved - and that is, according to the argument that it is wrong to expect another to bear the consequences of your choice, wrong. Still with me?

3) But if the original argument (1) makes it acceptable for the father to not be involved, and the father chooses not to be involved, it is the child that suffers the consequences of that decision (2). Therefore, by arguing that a father should be able to choose non-involvement due to him not having to bear the consequences of another choice, we allow that father to foist the consequences of his own choice onto the child. The argument thus breaks down because the principle of "your choice, your responsibility" is applied to the mother but not to the father.

You're conflating the agreement to have sex with the agreement to conceive with the agreement to carry to term with the agreement to keep the baby and with the agreement to raise it.

No. No, I'm not. Agreement to sex does not equal agreement to conceive, and so on. I'd describe that sort of agreement as the agreement between two people who are actively trying to have a baby.

My argument is that agreement to sex equals agreement to the risk of conception, and so on. If you willingly undergo any sort of risk (smoking, high-interest loans, etc.) then you're accepting that the risk may eventuate and that you will have to take responsibility for the risk you've assumed (lung cancer, defaulting, etc.).

Right. I said something similar. Regardless of whatever situation we can come up with, she's responsible for making the choice. She's the only one who can do that.

She has complete control over her own body, yes. That means the choice to abort or carry to term is hers alone.

If you insist that the man is on the hook for absolutely everything that happens from the moment of conception, then why shouldn't he have a say as to what happens? Why should the woman be able to make those decisions completely on her own with no input from the man? If he's going to be held responsible for her decisions, he should have a say in it, no?

As much say as she has over what he chooses to do with his own body. A woman can't insist that a man have a vasectomy before she'll have sex with him - that choice is his alone.

The man had his say when he had sex, in the full knowledge that he'd be legally responsible for any resulting child if the woman did not choose to abort - in the same way that I had my say when signing over the right to buy stock to my broker.

I bet your response is going to be "he made his decision when he had sex" -- to which I say, so did she, so why should she be allowed to have an abortion?

What? That doesn't follow at all. The decision to have sex and assume the risk of pregnancy in no way means a woman has given up the right to control over her own body.

So you think that should lead to laws mandating that people be involved parents? Really?

We mandate that parents be involved financially. Really.

If you're taking full responsibility, then why does it matter whether he takes any responsibility at all?

Because children benefit from a relationship with their father? (http://www.civitas.org.uk/hwu/fathers.php) On cognitive, educational, and social levels.

This is the same exact argument used to justify abortion bans. You consented to having a child when you had sex, so tough fucking shit. If you were truly worried about having a child, you shouldn't have had sex.

It's not the same. That argument assumes that a baby exists from the moment of conception. Thus those who make this argument are looking at it through the lens of abortion being a moral evil. Their dichotomy is take responsibility or commit murder.

The only intersection between the pro-life stance and my own is responsibility. If one isn't prepared to accept the possible risks of sex (whether or not you admit abortion as one of those risks) then one shouldn't be assuming them in the first place.

So do you think that the kid whose mom gets a check from the state every month has a father, despite the fact that dad lives on the other side of the country and has never seen his kid? Getting a child support check isn't exactly "involvement". It's financial support. You were talking about the child suffering from having no father, which still happens all the damn time, even with dads who pay child support.

Yes, it does. But limited (financial) support is better than no support.

What options would be easier, compared to the current situation? A biological parent can be completely uninvolved in the child's life with the exception of wage garnishing, if the custodial parent decides to request child support. If I were a non-custodial parent, I could have a child who lives in another state, and the only thing I'd ever have to do is look at the wage garnishments on my paychecks. That's it.

That might not bother you, but listen to some people complain about this and you'd think they were undergoing torture. I've no doubt that if some would get out of that limited involvement if they could.

First of all, I'm not arguing for removing the current child support system. And even if they did, it wouldn't suddenly become "socially acceptable." The "deadbeat dad" stereotype is always going to be negative.

I disagree. Legitimise it, label being a deadbeat dad as a right , and you're going to find it slowly becoming more socially acceptable.

How many teenagers do you think do that? It's not exactly common for kids with raging hormones to sit down and logically assess the statistical probability of getting pregnant, comparing the effectiveness of different methods of birth control.

Not enough do it. But this isn't because they can't, it's because they don't want to. They choose not to. And if they choose to expose themselves to a higher level of risk, then they have to accept the consequences if that risk occurs.

Of course everybody is capable of it. But people are also driven by emotions and hormones. You can't treat a topic like this the same way that you treat a business transaction with an investment broker.

And that attitude - people won't be responsible for themselves, there's always an excuse - is exactly why there's so much trouble dealing with this issue. We need to stop catering to people's desire to be irresponsible and lazy by excusing their poor behaviour, and insist that they behave responsibly.

[Sidhe747]

Madonna certainly takes the financial concerns to be the most of it.

[Loren Pechtel]

I have a big problem with child support for a child he never wanted but is burdened with the cost due to her choice of a more expensive option.

I have a big problem with people voluntarily taking on the risk of children and then baulking when the risk that they voluntarily assumed materialises.

Except that's not what's happening.

When you have sex you consent to the risk of a conception, you don't consent to a child.

If she chooses a child instead of an abortion that's *HER* choice and her burden. It shouldn't increase his liability.

[Loren Pechtel]

People think it because it's a valid and logical argument. I find it pretty morally and philosophically tenable, myself (unlike the argument that you and HNA are putting forth). Each one of us has the choice to control our fertility; each one of us is capable of doing so. Choosing not to, and then trying to make out that you never had the choice in the first place, is what's untenable.

We just keep going around and around, with points unaddressed. No offense, but this conversation should probably just end.

Agreed. The people who favor child support are simply unwilling to consider that there are two decisions, not one.

[Octavia]

I'd be willing to consider it if a good argument were put forward. But "no-one else should be forced to pay for your choice" is no good argument. It's logically inconsistent and therefore invalid.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Just keep asserting that, maybe one day people will just forget to disagree.

You base the claim on the fact that the father's choice 'costs' the child extra.

This is untrue and irrelevant. It's irrelevant because there is no fucking child when the father disavows responsibility. The mother goes ahead with the pregnancy despite knowing there's no support there - there's no way in hell that that makes him liable.

And it's untrue because the father's refusal to pay support does not increase the child's expenses in any way. He has cost the child precisely nothing.

You: I need a hundred bucks. Gimme.

Me: No.

You: You bastard, I'm now a hundred bucks worse off than I would have been if you said yes! I was already a hundred bucks short, and now you COST me a hundred bucks on top of that! I'm going to sue!

Judge: lol, gtfo

[Octavia]

Just keep asserting that, maybe one day people will just forget to disagree.

Which is, of course, the exact same thing that can be said about your argument as well, yes? :p

You base the claim on the fact that the father's choice 'costs' the child extra.

This is untrue and irrelevant. It's irrelevant because there is no fucking child when the father disavows responsibility. The mother goes ahead with the pregnancy despite knowing there's no support there - there's no way in hell that that makes him liable.

And it's untrue because the father's refusal to pay support does not increase the child's expenses in any way. He has cost the child precisely nothing.

You: I need a hundred bucks. Gimme.

Me: No.

You: You bastard, I'm now a hundred bucks worse off than I would have been if you said yes! I was already a hundred bucks short, and now you COST me a hundred bucks on top of that! I'm going to sue!

Judge: lol, gtfo

It's not irrelevant, because the father's free choice to not be involved is separate from the choice to carry to term in the same way that the choice to carry to term is separate from the choice to engage in sex, as you claim. They're related and consequential, but separate - and arguing that only one is separate is special pleading/cherry-picking.

It's untrue because involved fathers give more benefits than the simply financial (which is often needed anyway). Having an involved father gives children cognitive, social, and educational advantages later in life, as many scientific studies attest.

[TySixtus]

But "no-one else should be forced to pay for your choice" is no good argument.

It isn't?

[His Noodly Appendage]

So what, you're pushing for unwilling fathers to not just pay, but actually share custody as well? What's next, shotgun weddings all round? Because I'm sure there are plenty of studies showing that separated parents comstitute poorer care than a nice nuclear family...

[Octavia]

It isn't?

You tell me. Is it always wrong to force another to pay for your choice? (Albeit this is a philosophical point of very broad application.)

If it is, then it is wrong for the father to choose to be uninvolved, thus depriving the child of the myriad advantages of his presence.

Ergo, using the "it is always wrong to force another to pay for your choice" argument to allow the father to make a choice that someone else pays for is inconsistent. The argument fails.

[TySixtus]

The term "father" is loaded in this case because you're talking as if the child is already born . . . which is exactly the problem.

[Octavia]

So what, you're pushing for unwilling fathers to not just pay, but actually share custody as well? What's next, shotgun weddings all round? Because I'm sure there are plenty of studies showing that separated parents comstitute poorer care than a nice nuclear family...

Children do better with involved fathers than without. That's simply inescapable.

Giving the father the right to non-involvement, as you wish to do, is clearly deleterious to the one party of the three who had no say in their own existence. Now, of course you cannot force anyone to be an ideally involved parent, but there is middle ground between forcing someone to be ideally involved and giving them the right to abscond entirely. One such middle ground is what we have at the moment - forced financial involvement, but no legal pressure to anything more. Not perfect, of course, but limited involvement is better than none.

Given that children do do better the more their fathers are involved, it's in the best interests of the child for the father to be involved as much as possible. Conversely, it's the child's interests who suffer if the father chooses to be uninvolved. Therefore, under your "no-one should be forced to pay for the consequences of someone else's choice" principle, it's clear that the child is the one who pays if the father chooses to absent himself. (Same with the mother, of course.)

[darjeeling]

Octavia, I'm not ignoring the long post you wrote, but at this point I think we're both just repeating ourselves, so I'd like to just address this part:
It's untrue because involved fathers give more benefits than the simply financial (which is often needed anyway). Having an involved father gives children cognitive, social, and educational advantages later in life, as many scientific studies attest.

So what, you're pushing for unwilling fathers to not just pay, but actually share custody as well? What's next, shotgun weddings all round? Because I'm sure there are plenty of studies showing that separated parents comstitute poorer care than a nice nuclear family...

Children do better with involved fathers than without. That's simply inescapable.

Giving the father the right to non-involvement, as you wish to do, is clearly deleterious to the one party of the three who had no say in their own existence. Now, of course you cannot force anyone to be an ideally involved parent, but there is middle ground between forcing someone to be ideally involved and giving them the right to abscond entirely. One such middle ground is what we have at the moment - forced financial involvement, but no legal pressure to anything more. Not perfect, of course, but limited involvement is better than none.

Given that children do do better the more their fathers are involved, it's in the best interests of the child for the father to be involved as much as possible. Conversely, it's the child's interests who suffer if the father chooses to be uninvolved. Therefore, under your "no-one should be forced to pay for the consequences of someone else's choice" principle, it's clear that the child is the one who pays if the father chooses to absent himself. (Same with the mother, of course.)

Again, having mom receive a check from the government isn't "involvement". You can have that and still have the father completely absent from the child's life, never having even seen his/her face. Having your wages garnished isn't involvement. And the government doesn't mandate parental involvement. Just a monthly or bi-monthly payment.

Some studies suggest that children who attend religious services and whose parents attend religious services are healthier emotionally and psychologically than those who don't. Let's assume just for the sake of argument that it's absolutely true, even though in reality it may not be and is probably more complicated than that. Does this mean that the government should mandate that parents attend religious services and take their children with them? After all, if parents aren't doing it, they're depriving their children. The child's interests suffer if they don't attend religious services.

[dancer_rnb]

I guess what bothers me is while I am willing to accept responsibility for what I knowingly
do, I wish I could blindly trust a woman in these matters. And I don't think I can.